Fluff vs. Mechanics

[NichG]

Firstly, adding a mechanical penalty doesn't automatically make a druid just hold nature hostage for powers. You may play a character that way, but that doesn't define literally all dnd druids to exist as nature-thieves, that's just a real stretch.

Second, cool? If you don't like that way of thinking, then don't go with that. I also said you can just not have a restriction (it's a stupid one in the first place but whatever), what about that?

Yeah, that's fine, I'm not making an argument that people have to play the game a certain way at their tables. I'm making an argument that the elements of fluff that a table agrees should be part of the game are of equal importance as the elements of crunch that the table agrees should be part of the game. I'm fine with a table saying e.g. 'drown healing doesn't make sense to us, so it won't work', and a table saying 'druids not being able to wear metal armor doesn't make sense to us, so lets just say they can'. What I'm trying to establish is that both of these are equally important - its not a lesser matter to change the point about druids just because it doesn't come with a mechanical penalty.

Or to put it another way, if someone comes to my table and says 'I don't like this piece of fluff, can we change it?' then that's perfectly fine and it's a good conversation to have. If someone comes to my table and says 'because this is just fluff, we should automatically feel free to just ignore it, but because these are mechanical rules, we should automatically obey them' then I would challenge that assumption, because it implicitly relegates anything that isn't expressed in terms of mechanical objects to lesser status and that weakens the ability of people to trust the fluff and use it as the basis for reasoning about cause and effect in that setting.

An example of this might be something like the whole 'vampires drink blood' thing. Fluff-wise, vampires drink blood. Mechanically, there is no penalty for vampires not drinking blood. If players are of the mindset that the fluff indicates something which one can safely presume holds true in the setting, then its fine that there's no mechanical penalty - if they encounter a vampire, they have been told that it's safe to conclude that it is getting blood from somewhere, and if there are rumors of a vampire in the area and they see no evidence of blood being procured, that should be interpreted as an anomaly. But if players are of the mindset that only the things which are mechanically enforced hold true, they can misinterpret that evidence and lose the ability to reason about the setting, or may draw conclusions like 'I should become a vampire, there's no downside!' which aren't intended to hold true and which are inconsistent with the world being portrayed.

A table can decide e.g. 'vampires aren't about the whole drinking blood thing' and if that's a specific choice about the setting and game at that table, then it's all good. But its problematic if someone were to assume without having that conversation that vampires aren't going to be about blood drinking because there's no mechanic forcing them to do it on pain of penalty or death.

[Greywander]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.

Indeed. Off the top of my head, there's three possible restrictions we could put on druids in metal armor that would incentivize players not to use it and to follow the lore:

Druids aren't proficient with metal armor. Wearing armor you're not proficient with introduces some pretty crippling penalties. This should be more than sufficient to convince a player to stick with the lore of not wearing metal. It also makes sense that if druids have a thing against wearing metal armor that they simply won't train new druids in how to use it. Another aspect about this that I like, however, is that it provides an easy way to circumvent it if you have a character concept that involves wearing metal armor: just get proficiency from somewhere else. Others might see this as a downside, but I don't. My only issue with this approach is that it doesn't explain why in-universe druids don't like metal armor; it's the consequence, not the cause, of druids not liking metal armor.

Metal armor prevents Wild Shape. Lore-wise, it makes sense that the nature magic of a druid isn't able to reshape metal armor when the druid tries to turn into an animal. One important aspect of going this route is that, even if you have/get proficiency with metal armor, this restriction would still apply. That said, Wild Shape, while an iconic druid ability, isn't so powerful that there aren't some builds that would prefer to eschew it in favor of metal armor. Using this restriction, I would expect to see some druid circles have a problem with metal armor, while others do not.

Metal armor prevents casting druid spells. A more heavy-handed version of the above. I think the major difference here is that there's not likely to be a lot of builds that would willingly give up spellcasting in order to wear metal armor. If, however, you truly wanted a druid in metal armor to "not be a druid anymore", then this would achieve that. Especially if combined with the above, you would effectively be locked out of most of your druid class features while wearing metal armor.

If I were to DM, and I didn't revoke the taboo against metal armor, I would probably use the first approach listed above (druids aren't proficient). That seems like a baseline way to handle this. I might also tack on the Wild Shape restriction, as it would help explain why druids in-universe don't like metal armor. I think the third option is too heavy handed for my taste, but I could see other tables using that approach, or even combining all three together.

---

As for fluff in general, I don't usually have a problem with people refluffing one thing as another as long as the mechanics don't change significantly. Want to use X racial traits, but say you're Y race? Probably fine, as long as those traits have plausible explanations (e.g. a halfling, being small, could be refluffed as a short human, or a child, but you'd have trouble justifying refluffing it as an 8 foot tall goliath). Want to give your character a tail? That's probably fine. Want your warforged wizard to shoot a disintegration ray when they use Chill Touch? Yeah, cool.

Where it starts becoming a problem is when the fluff change starts to have more than a cosmetic effect. Want to use your tail to grab something, or knock something over, or in some other way? Well, if you had a tail, I suppose you could do those things. Want to use your disintegration ray to cut a hole in the wall? Ehhh, that's not what Chill Touch does, I don't know...

Fluff isn't always just a cosmetic change, sometimes it can also allow you to do things you couldn't do before. This is why it's important to understand the potential ramifications of certain fluff before you allow a player to use it. I would say that if you've already allowed a particular fluff, stick with it for the lifetime of that character. If the player does something unexpected with it that you don't like, just make a note not to allow that fluff on any future characters. You might think allowing the urchin to speak to rats is cool, until he uses them as a spy network and even to carry out ratssassinations. Maybe don't allow that next time. Also, I now have an idea for a forest gnome urchin.

There's a lot of class or racial features that get written off as "ribbon" features. Essentially they are treated as if they were nothing but fluff, and to a degree they can be fluff. Thieves' Cant, for example, is very much a roleplay element, and a lot of tables are likely to never see it used. A permissive DM might allow non-rogues to learn Thieves' Cant, either using one of their languages or even for free. I think this does a slight disservice to rogues, though considering it is a minor feature I doubt most of them would mind. And there are times when something like Thieves' Cant could prove extremely useful, if the DM actually incorporates it or the player expressly invokes it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there can sometimes be overlap between fluff and ribbon features, and while I think it's okay to allow some fluff if it's justified, some thought should be given as to whether that fluff should be wrapped in a feat or class feature instead of given out for free.

[diplomancer]

All rules of the game are "because I said so". A 1st level bard knows 4 spells. He knows them, he just hasn't memorized, or asked his god for them, or whatever. Nevertheless, he can only cast 2 of them in a day (or 1 of them twice). Why? It makes no sense. Spellcasting is not described as a grueling experience that takes so much out of a person that a 1st level character can only do it for 12 seconds a day (if it was, it would raise other issues... see the current thread on subtle spells). Think well what kind of experiences in the real world are like that.

The only answer is "because I said so". Same thing for spell lists, and same thing for every other mechanical limitation in the game. You don't like it? Change it. But acknowledge you are changing it, be it the spell lists (the designers just did that after all), the class descriptions, the race descriptions, the armor descriptions, etc.

[Tanarii]

So, you're arguing that there is no meaningful distinction between fluff and mechanics in 5e, but you aren't defining the terms? I mean, I guess that follows--arguably every undefined term has exactly the same meaning as every other undefined term. :)

No. There are meaningful distinctions between different kinds of rules in 5e. Some are more easily modifiable by the DMs and players and other less so, for a variety of reasons. Some have balance concerns, others world building concerns, and others roleplaying (i.e. player decision making during play) concerns. Many apply to some or all of hose things, as well as others.

What I'm stating is that the undefined terms "mechanical" and "fluff" are not something I feel a need to define personally, and that (generally) any given persons personal definitions of them don't necessarily apply to all of us, and that (specifically) the all too common attempt to define a rule as not-a-rule because it is either "fluff" or "not mechanical" is not a valid argument in many RPGs, including 5e.

The theory of "mechanics are rules, fluff is not rules" is neither universally true, nor is the line between the two typically clear or agreed upon by any two holders of that theory.

Aside: This whole druid/metal armor thing looks like a different face on that lump of polished coal that is alignment debates. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Agreed. Alignment is often another thing people try to feed into their hardline mechanics/fluff theory and unsurprisingly come out with a nonsense result like "banana".

[Greywander]

All rules of the game are "because I said so". A 1st level bard knows 4 spells. He knows them, he just hasn't memorized, or asked his god for them, or whatever. Nevertheless, he can only cast 2 of them in a day (or 1 of them twice). Why? It makes no sense. Spellcasting is not described as a grueling experience that takes so much out of a person that a 1st level character can only do it for 12 seconds a day. Think well what kind of experiences in the real world are like that.

The only answer is "because I said so". Same thing for spell lists, and same thing for every other mechanical limitation in the game. You don't like it? Change it. But acknowledge you are changing it, be it the spell lists (the designers just did that after all), the class descriptions, the race descriptions, the armor descriptions, etc.

Are you trying to convince me that "Because I said so" is adequate justification for a rule, or that Vancian spellcasting is an arbitrary game construct that makes no sense in-universe?

You're still missing the point, though, by a mile. The rules do not say, "A bard won't cast more than two spells." If they did, then it would logically lead to the question, "What if my bard casts more than two spells?" Instead, the rules say (more or less), "A bard can't cast more than two spells." Why? Well... I'm not really sure. I think the Vancian magic system works well as a balanced game construct, but I find it much too arbitrary to connect it to a plausible in-universe explanation. Although the part of me that craves verisimilitude chafes at it, I'm still willing to accept the Vancian magic system as the mechanics for it are clearly defined. It never tells you what you will or won't do, only what you can and can't do. And the consequences of your actions are clearly laid out.

A lot of the other mechanical limitations are the same way. A barbarian can only Rage twice per long rest. Why? Because that's what the designers determined was balanced. Why, in-universe? Maybe because you're just too tired to work yourself up into a rage again. There's a certain arbitrariness to such mechanics. Some are easier to justify in-universe than others. But all of them are very clear on the mechanical end.

"Druids won't wear metal armor" means absolutely nothing. This carries as much weight as a parent telling their child, "You will do your homework." If the child fails to do their homework, and there are no consequences, then is "Children will do homework," even really a rule? The rules clearly state that if you use up all your spell slots you will be unable to cast any more spells. There is no, "What if I cast more spells anyway?" You just can't. Druids can wear metal armor. Anyone can wear metal armor, and it would be absurd to suggest that druids are somehow incapable of doing so. They just choose not to. But they can. So why don't they? What happens if they do? It's not explained, there are no consequences given. We're told not to do something, but nothing actually prevents us from doing that thing, and there are no stated consequences for doing that thing. The burden is placed entirely on the DM to figure something out should a belligerent druid show up at their table in a chain shirt. The DM literally has to make up a consequence out of thin air in order to enforce this "rule". And that's no rule.

According to the rules, clerics of Pelor can cast Animate Dead. You might think that Pelor's clerics wouldn't be allowed to cast a spell that creates undead, but nothing in the rules actually prevents it. The onus is on the player to say, "Yes, this is part of my character that they won't cast Animate Dead." And that's as it should be. It should be up to the player to decide how their character behaves, and they will be more invested in character traits that they've decided on themselves rather than ones they've had thrust on them by the book. Don't like the idea of a necromancer cleric of Pelor? Refluff Pelor as a different god of light who's down with the undead. Or refluff the Animate Dead spell so that the undead it creates are more similar to archliches or baelnorns and other Good aligned undead.

So why is it that the rules allow me to get away with necromancer clerics of Pelor, but a druid wearing metal armor is too much of a stretch?

[eftexar]

Thanks Greywander and tectorman. I know it's probably too verbose, but sometimes it's needed for clarification. That, and I feel as if there are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. Hopefully I don't come off as too aggressive with it. When dealing with game-related subjects and forums, I tend to use a slightly different "syntax" to describe things, often by bolding the first letter. I've actually had people complain about my grammar because of it, without realizing I've done it on purpose for a reason. That, and I think it actually makes it easier to read, especially for those who skim (they can jump to the important points or back to them more easily).

---

Ah, but that is not true at all Diplomancer. Besides the fact that you are being overly pedantic (to the point of being obtuse), the reason we follow those rules isn't "because I said so". Games are constructed with Rules for a reason. This construct, or framework, is there to assist us and make game play fair. The rules your are paraphrasing in this case "are necessary." Saying a "Druid won't wear Metal Armor" isn't necesssarily "neccessary."

See my explanation :

Spoiler: Expanded Explanation

Show

A major, Major, reason for this is the distinction between these two instances. You see, CONTEXT. Once again, you have completely ignored Context. D&D is both of two things : An RPG and a Story Telling System. Abstraction(s) must exist for the purpose of an RPG. It won't function otherwise. In this case, these Abstract Mechanics work, not because they aren't explained, but "because they can't be explained" or "don't need to be explained." They don't damage "Suspension of Disbelief."

As in, it is impossible to explain, since this Abstraction is based more on game theories and game construction than Story Telling. Further, these Rules can be accepted without much protest, since they aren't there to Limit Player's, but to provide a framework to Build from. In this case, the "Rules are Constructive." That Druids can't wear Armor is a "Rule that is Deconstructive." It removes options, where-as spellcasting adds them.

So, saying "a Rule isn't a Rule because it is Fluff", is no more accurate than saying "a Rule is a Rule because it is Mechanics." Why? Let met repeat myself, the answer here, is CONTEXT. Context, in an RPG with Story Telling, is the grey area between RAW and RAI.

Remember, "Only the Sith deal in Absolutes."

This grey area, between RAW and RAI, is difficult to define. Arguing against my point, using "because the Rules say so" "in all Contexts" is both an inaccurate assumption and assumes that either RAW or RAI, one or the other (that is), is the ONLY influence. In this case, RAW. This is a Fallacy most people, even I (myself) have for a time, assume(d) is true (and unequivocally so). We need to remember that RAW and RAI coexist, along with varying levels of DM-FIAT.

Think of it as a balancing act :

Spoiler: Another Extended Explanation

Show

RAW > DM-FIAT (Balance Concerns) > RAI > DM-FIAT (Opinion). While one is, by necessity of greater importance than the next, each doesn't automatically overule the next. Instead, I think you have to work your way down :

RAW is clearly "contested," in that so many people are under the impression it works one way or another. >
DM-FIAT should uncover no real Balance Concerns. But if it does, it can be house-ruled to work for both the DM and the Players >

Technically, here, we could stop. RAW was "under contest", and Balance Concerns can be dealt with in a way to allow it (even though limitations are not indicated as per RAW). This is a good place to put in House Rules. A distinct fact to remember : House Rules are not Homebrew, unless they add Rules or take away Rules in a way that isn't specifically for repairing a percieved deficiency. It allows flexibility to deal with RAW, without delving further into the issue (because Players and DMs just want to Play at this point). But, let's continue our sliding scale to see where it keeps going :

At RAI, we need to think of "what was intended?" or even "what wasn't intended?" Much of this is somewhate Subjective, so we may have to refer to precedent here. That aside; Did the designers purposfully word it that way to exclude Revivify from Contingency? Perhaps nothing regarding this kind of issue occurred to them? What did it's closest Mechanical and Fluff predecessor, 3.5e, do to handle this? etc.?

I don't think, RAI, they ever intended to exclude or include the option. So, we can speculate - what do we think they would do? Precedent seems to have indicated, at least in my opinion, that Revivify can be used with Contingency. It has functioned this way previously in Mechanically similar games (particular another version of D&D).

The very last step would be the second part of DM-FIAT; does the Player doing this "harm" my game. Does it ruin immersion? This step should be more open to Player influence, since unless it interferes on the campaign or balance at an intermediate to a large level, why should the DM arbitrarily lay a limit (especially if all other Player's disagree (with the DM))?

You could say "Druids won't wear Armor" and still allow a PC Druid to do so (likey with some house ruled penalties to balance things (and fairly too; the option should be sub-optimal but not bad)). Here, you come up with a reason why. Or at least require the Player to come up with one that semi-believable, before allowing them to. My more detailed explanation for the Dwarf scenario (another poster has posted (sorry didn't keep track of the name), isn't entirely unbelievable. And, it can expand the Story Telling.

Let's brainstorm some Fluff for this : Perhaps they would get lots of odd looks and, let's also say Races tied to forest, like Elves or Treants, might not agree with them. Perhaps a few Druid Circles are even so Hostile, to the point of Attacking the Player's Character for their "blasphemous behavior." Here, penalties might not even be necessary, since "these Enemies are the Penalty." Especially if they have access to the Rust Spell.

This, this here, is how "Fluff as Mechanics" should actually be used. Not only is it "Constructive," rather than "Deconstructive," but we have a clear penalty here. It could cascade into so many story lines too! What if it ignited an arms race between different Druid Circles, with Player's caught in the middle, as they try to prove the superiority of their "lack of Metal Armor" or their "use of non-Metal Unobtanium Armor." Suddenly, you have a Cold War, Fantasy style! See where I'm going with this now . . .

---

Saying a Druid "won't" wear Metal Armor is Fluff with a Mechanical impact. Saying a Druid "can't" wear Armor is Mechanical with Fluff impact. Neither are proper. The first violates the "Rule of Free Will." And the second? It has "no explanation". It has no penalty. It is just a random blurb, that, as far as I can tell, is the way the designers "want" you to play. If I'm not mistaken, it is also the only 'rule' stated in such a way. Any other circumstance would indicated a Typo. Also think about it like this :

Vanacian Casting = Gravity; I can believe I'm not affected by gravity, but if I jump off a building I still go Splat! from the sudden stop at the end.

Druid won't wear Metal = Belief; A Soldier's Faith says he can't kill people, but, even though the Book seems to indicate RAW that doing so is "always evil", his God indicated it was "okay", not "good," but "okay," for his followers to do so to defend their people or to escape persecution because of their faith. Does he explicitly say this? I don't believe so, but it can RAI be considered true.

I have the utmost respect for people who defend their own (or others) from harm. And the Soldier in this instance would likely say "he won't kill someone" (when away from combat). In this case, his morals, faith, or perhaps just beliefs, would not allow him to do so. Perhaps, maybe, he doesn't consider "eliminating" an enemy combatant killing. Because D&D is as much about Story as it is about the Game, complex grey areas exist. The key is, to know when to apply real life examples and when not to. And to do so without being Arbitrary.

[diplomancer]

Are you trying to convince me that "Because I said so" is adequate justification for a rule, or that Vancian spellcasting is an arbitrary game construct that makes no sense in-universe?

You're still missing the point, though, by a mile. The rules do not say, "A bard won't cast more than two spells." If they did, then it would logically lead to the question, "What if my bard casts more than two spells?" Instead, the rules say (more or less), "A bard can't cast more than two spells." Why? Well... I'm not really sure. I think the Vancian magic system works well as a balanced game construct, but I find it much too arbitrary to connect it to a plausible in-universe explanation. Although the part of me that craves verisimilitude chafes at it, I'm still willing to accept the Vancian magic system as the mechanics for it are clearly defined. It never tells you what you will or won't do, only what you can and can't do. And the consequences of your actions are clearly laid out.

A lot of the other mechanical limitations are the same way. A barbarian can only Rage twice per long rest. Why? Because that's what the designers determined was balanced. Why, in-universe? Maybe because you're just too tired to work yourself up into a rage again. There's a certain arbitrariness to such mechanics. Some are easier to justify in-universe than others. But all of them are very clear on the mechanical end.

"Druids won't wear metal armor" means absolutely nothing. This carries as much weight as a parent telling their child, "You will do your homework." If the child fails to do their homework, and there are no consequences, then is "Children will do homework," even really a rule? The rules clearly state that if you use up all your spell slots you will be unable to cast any more spells. There is no, "What if I cast more spells anyway?" You just can't. Druids can wear metal armor. Anyone can wear metal armor, and it would be absurd to suggest that druids are somehow incapable of doing so. They just choose not to. But they can. So why don't they? What happens if they do? It's not explained, there are no consequences given. We're told not to do something, but nothing actually prevents us from doing that thing, and there are no stated consequences for doing that thing. The burden is placed entirely on the DM to figure something out should a belligerent druid show up at their table in a chain shirt. The DM literally has to make up a consequence out of thin air in order to enforce this "rule". And that's no rule.

According to the rules, clerics of Pelor can cast Animate Dead. You might think that Pelor's clerics wouldn't be allowed to cast a spell that creates undead, but nothing in the rules actually prevents it. The onus is on the player to say, "Yes, this is part of my character that they won't cast Animate Dead." And that's as it should be. It should be up to the player to decide how their character behaves, and they will be more invested in character traits that they've decided on themselves rather than ones they've had thrust on them by the book. Don't like the idea of a necromancer cleric of Pelor? Refluff Pelor as a different god of light who's down with the undead. Or refluff the Animate Dead spell so that the undead it creates are more similar to archliches or baelnorns and other Good aligned undead.

So why is it that the rules allow me to get away with necromancer clerics of Pelor, but a druid wearing metal armor is too much of a stretch?

You accept the game construct of Magic. You do not accept the game construct of Druid. They are both game constructs, and nothing but game constructs. That's fine. Change it.

DMs adjudicating the results of player actions is actually Rule 0, and not a defective rule. If doing so is a burden to you, never DM, you will have far greater difficulties than deciding what happens when a Druid puts on metal armor.

Conversely, the player who came to my table with the attitude of "I will parse the rules to my best mechanical advantage, and even contest your rulings and interpretations to do so, taking away your job of adjudicating the results of my actions" will, at best, get my job of DM, since he considers himself the final ruling authority of the game.

[eftexar]

Diplomancer, you are still missing the point entirely. This is not Mortal Kombat. You are viewing it as Player vs DM. You are assigning absolute control, arbitrarily, in a Game that isn't designed to do that. Regardless of whether a DM or Player leans more towards the Game or the Story, it is NOT the Player vs the DM. It is the Player vs the Game or the Story. The DM doesn't = Game or Story, because it couldn't be Played without : PARTICIPATION.

The DM is, using America, as an example, both the Executive and Legislative Branch. Players are the Judiciary Branch. Sure, the Executive-DM can overule everything the Player says, with his Veto, and then the Leglislative-DM can fillibuster with the Legislative Branch, but then he's just being possessive and allowing his own conflict(s) of interest to influence the game.

Using this Precept (of Player vs DM), you are arguing that "everything about the Game is a construct" and "that the Player is trying to seize control." It's not. And it's not. And by claiming anyone who disagrees with the DM is attempting to seize control . . .

A dangerous route to follow that is, for once you go down it, forever will it dominate your destiny. The path of the dictator, it is.

Your issue here doesn't seem to be that "Player Druids want to wear Metal Armor," so much as "They are not playing by my Rules. I don't want to share my Toy with them now." or "They are not Playing by my Rules. I'm always right and the Rules say what I think KNOW they say." It appears that you aren't allowing for other interpretations not because "you think that they are wrong", but because "you think you are right".

---

The fact that you propose impose DMing only works the way you indicated is the most dar-ning (can we cuss here, can't remember?, meh . . .) piece of evidence here. Every argument you have presented has been about CONTROL. By declaring "everything about the Game is a construct," you have implied given the DM (has) permission to alter the Rules as he sees fit and the Players can do nothing about it, no matter how much "rocks fall and everyone dies (without a Save)" is thrown around like candy. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

It also allows you to make this thread's argument from any point of view, because at this point your argument is based on a construct you have argued for. This, is circular thinking at it's worst. When it's done in such a subtle way the person talking doesn't realize they are doing it. This kind of thinking can't be argued against, not because it's "right," but because the Rules become "whatever I want them to be, so your opinion doesn't matter." And these Rules can change to support any argument you make, without anyone else knowing them.

[diplomancer]

I would say the attitude of player vs dm is far more illustrated by the player who says "I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it" than by the DM who says "if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences", or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor", the same way he answers the 1st Level Bard who tries to cast his 3rd spell in the day "you don't. First level bards don't cast 3 spells in one day". Both of these rules are arbitrary (and, ultimately, nonsensical) limitations about the actions a character takes.

[eftexar]

You are still stuck on Player vs DM. As the Cook might say "a tomato is a tamato, except when it's not." It's a fruit in the world of Botany and a vegetable in the world of Culinary. The Vanacian Casting System and the "Druid won't wear Armor" are within completely different CONTEXT(s). That argument doesn't work.

And, you are still painting the "Player as the Adversary" and the "DM as the victim". Nobody here has complained about "there being mechanical consequences," but rather "there are no consequences defined" in the book and "you seek unreasonable punishment to stop, not dissuade players, from taking an option" rather than "making it reasonably sub-optimal, but still able to function (and alerting the Player to this before they make their decision)." You are using Rule 0, to adjucate the lack of a Rule, heavy handidly to FORCE Players to do as you wish.

I don't believe any, or at least many, here have said or meant, anything you claim they have; Quoting you :

"I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it"

Numerous people have pointed out that a (reasonable, mind you) penalty could be applied. And the Player would have to have some justification to do so. This isn't a problem with having consequences and penalties. This is a problem with how you want to DM. You want Players to flex around you, rather than you flex around them. There is a reason responsive gaming with multiple pathways is so popular now. People want choice.

"if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences",

Is perfectly fine.

or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor"

Is terrible. This is far worse. You are dictating what the Player themselves is doing. You aren't just controlling their Character, you are vicariously DICTATING that they behave a certain way in real life as well. This isn't a Video Game where, "sorry, I don't have the code to do that Dave." Ironically, you are metagaming the Player in a way I didn't think was possible before. You are metagaming the Player instead of the Player's Character.

[diplomancer]

You are still stuck on Player vs DM. As the Cook might say "a tomato is a tamato, except when it's not." It's a fruit in the world of Botany and a vegetable in the world of Culinary. The Vanacian Casting System and the "Druid won't wear Armor" are within completely different CONTEXT(s). That argument doesn't work.

And, you are still painting the "Player as the Adversary" and the "DM as the victim". Nobody here has complained about "there being mechanical consequences," but rather "there are no consequences defined" in the book and "you seek unreasonable punishment to stop, not dissuade players, from taking an option" rather than "making it reasonably sub-optimal, but still able to function (and alerting the Player to this before they make their decision)." You are using Rule 0, to adjucate the lack of a Rule, heavy handidly to FORCE Players to do as you wish.

I don't believe any, or at least many, here have said or meant, anything you claim they have; Quoting you :

"I will wear metal armor and be unhappy about any mechanical consequence the DM imposes on me for doing it"

Numerous people have pointed out that a (reasonable, mind you) penalty could be applied. And the Player would have to have some justification to do so. This isn't a problem with having consequences and penalties. This is a problem with how you want to DM. You want Players to flex around you, rather than you flex around them. There is a reason responsive gaming with multiple pathways is so popular now. People want choice.

"if you wear metal armor there will be mechanical consequences",

Is perfectly fine.

or even the DM who answers "I put on the metal armor" with "you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor"

Is terrible. This is far worse. You are dictating what the Player themselves is doing. You aren't just controlling their Character, you are vicariously DICTATING that they behave a certain way in real life as well. This isn't a Video Game where, "sorry, I don't have the code to do that Dave." Ironically, you are metagaming the Player in a way I didn't think was possible before. You are metagaming the Player instead of the Player's Character.

Am I FORCING the player to act as I will when I tell him that he does not cast his 3rd spell of the day? He can run a freaking marathon, he knows the spell, he moves his hands and says the appropriate words, but somehow he does not cast it, in the same way the druid does not wear the metal armor. You accept the first arbitrariness, but not the second.

The game has rules. It doesn't have "real rules" and "fake rules". Deciding to ignore them is up to the DM, not to the player. This is true of pure fluff rules without any mechanical impact (though most DMs will always be willing to work with the player's suggestions on those, it makes their world building job a lot easier). It's even more true of rules with mechanical impact, like the wearing of armor.

Once you are not following the rules anymore (as in, the DM allows the Druid to put on metal armor) it's up to the DM to decide what are the mechanical consequences of that, be it "you lose your druidic powers", "nothing happens", "as you put on the armor, you feel it change. By the time you are finished, you realize it's now a studded leather armor", or whatever else the DM wants (in the same way a DM could allow a 1st level player to cast a 3rd spell at the cost of being stunned for the rest of the day, for instance).

Edit: The traditional Vancian casting at least had an explanation: you forget the spell after you cast it. There is no such explanation now. It is entirely arbitrary.

[stoutstien]

Am I FORCING the player to act as I will when I tell him that he does not cast his 3rd spell of the day? He can run a freaking marathon, he knows the spell, he moves his hands and says the appropriate words, but somehow he does not cast it, in the same way the druid does not wear the metal armor. You accept the first arbitrariness, but not the second.

The game has rules. It doesn't have "real rules" and "fake rules". Deciding to ignore them is up to the DM, not to the player. This is true of pure fluff rules without any mechanical impact (though most DMs will always be willing to work with the player's suggestions on those, it makes their world building job a lot easier). It's even more true of rules with mechanical impact, like the wearing of armor.

Once you are not following the rules anymore (as in, the DM allows the Druid to put on metal armor) it's up to the DM to decide what are the mechanical consequences of that, be it "you lose your druidic powers", "nothing happens", "as you put on the armor, you feel it change. By the time you are finished, you realize it's now a studded leather armor", or whatever else the DM wants (in the same way a DM could allow a 1st level player to cast a 3rd spell at the cost of being stunned for the rest of the day, for instance).

I've always wanted to play one of these mystical strictly rules as written games. It probably be about on par is using a magic 8 Ball as a DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Remember, young acolyte, we use the metals of the earth to maim, kill, dismember and destroy, be it a dagger, scimitar, sickle or spear, but metal is only for killing. Never use metal for defense".

That's awesome.

I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect,

The rules in this edition do not make a distinction between the so called "fluff" and "crunch" - that distinction is being brought into the rules reading by people. As to asserting that the PHB is acting in bad faith ... you lost me. It's a book. (And yes, some of the writing in it makes me scratch my head). One of the best bits of advice I got for this edition, as I stumbled through how it was different than some previous editions, I got right here at GiTP: first, purge everything you know about D&D, then, get into this game edition as if it is its own thing. It was really helpful to me in being annoyed a lot less by some of the little things that made me go "what??" from time to time. (And I still do not like what they do with saving throws in this edition, but I have learned to live with it)

You accept the game construct of Magic. You do not accept the game construct of Druid. They are both game constructs, and nothing but game constructs.

And the other game constructs are creature types.

[diplomancer]

I've always wanted to play one of these mystical strictly rules as written games. It probably be about on par is using a magic 8 Ball as a DM.

I wouldn't, neither as a DM nor as a player. I prefer some more freedom, with 2 provisos:
1- The DM is the ultimate adjudicator of the rules
2- The DM should try to make the game fun for every one, including himself.
And one corollary: unless every one on the table is a lawyer who enjoys lawyering, rules discussions are not fun. Avoid them (see proviso number 1)

[stoutstien]

I wouldn't, neither as a DM nor as a player. I prefer some more freedom, with 2 provisos:
1- The DM is the ultimate adjudicator of the rules
2- The DM should try to make the game fun for every one, including himself.
And one corollary: unless every one on the table is a lawyer who enjoys lawyering, rules discussions are not fun. Avoid them (see proviso number 1)

Which is why I think handling the whole druid metal problem before a single die is rolled is the best policy. Saying you won't wear metal armor is asking for game stoppage and probably at a good thematic point.
"The druid rushes over to their fallen warrior comrade just in time for the giant boar too turns around and begins to charge. The druid grabs the shield off the ground....
Hey Mark is your shield made of mostly metal?
.."

[diplomancer]

Which is why I think handling the whole druid metal problem before a single die is rolled is the best policy. Saying you won't wear metal armor is asking for game stoppage and probably at a good thematic point.
"The druid rushes over to their fallen warrior comrade just in time for the giant boar too turns around and begins to charge. The druid grabs the shield off the ground....
Hey Mark is your shield made of mostly metal?
.."

This is something we can agree on. The moment a player says "I'm playing a Druid" is the time for the DM to tell him how he deals with the subject (and, in my experience, my players are even surprised. Their reaction is usually "well, obviously I won't wear metal armor, why are you even telling me that?")

[Addaran]

Thank you eftexar, stoutstien and Greywander. You give good explanations for your points and actually answer the opposing side's questions instead of just saying "that's how it is".


https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...ers-march-2016 " 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."
According to wizards, it's not unbalanced to have druids wear any armor from their proficiencies. So any medium armor.

From Forgotten Realms, druids of Mielikki can wear metal armors. Exemple being Pikel, who wears a metal pot as an helmet. That is metal armor right there.

[LentilNinja]

Druids don't wear metal armor", the same way he answers the 1st Level Bard who tries to cast his 3rd spell in the day "you don't. First level bards don't cast 3 spells in one day". Both of these rules are arbitrary (and, ultimately, nonsensical) limitations about the actions a character takes.

This is a false equivalency. The Bard example regards what a Bard cannot do, the Druid example regards what a Druid shouldn't do.

The Bard's spellcasting determine how many spells a Bard can cast before a long rest. There is no question of whether a Bard will or will not cast a third spell; they are completely unable to do so. That's in the rules.

The Druid's armor proficiencies state that they will not wear heavy armor. The question of will or will not implies it is possible to do, otherwise the question cannot be asked. How can I decide whether I will or will not have chicken for dinner, when at the store all the chicken is out of stock? It is not a question that can be asked, as there is no option.

Also, I know Sage Advice shouldn't be taken as gospel but they did release an article here answering Druids vs Metal Armor. To summarise:

1. "Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it."

   This backs the opinion that Druids have the choice to wear metal armor, which certifies they can wear it.
   
   

2. "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others."

   Explaining the 'restriction' (using term loosely) for Druids wearing metal armor is storywise rather than by the actual rules.
   
   

3. "As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."

   i.e. Druids wearing metal armor is not going to grant them any undeserving advantages mechanically. If as the DM a Druid wearing metal armor isn't compatible with your story/world, that's up to you. But again, going by the actual rules this is not an issue.

In short, as per the wording of the Druid's proficiencies as well as the opinion of Sage Advice, there is no reason to prohibit Druids from wearing metal armor nor does it grant any mechanical advantage the class should not already have access to.

[Tanarii]

You are viewing it as Player vs DM.

A player insisting that a rule is just fluff and not a rule are the ones trying to impose their will on the DM. They're the ones being adversarial here.

[stoutstien]

This is something we can agree on. The moment a player says "I'm playing a Druid" it's the time for the DM to tell him how he deals with the subject (and, in my experience, my players are even surprised. Their reaction is usually "well, obviously I won't wear metal armor, why are you even telling me that?")

With the vast number and diversity of the 5e players core coming in from past editions and new the genre the impact of rules is going to be all over the board.

We have a new DM I our area who's experience of DnD is only from video games. She has a solid grasp of the spirit of the rules but trips up on edge cases, which is to be expected. Last night it was the casting under water question(s).
I think it hard for anyone who has a solid baseline of 5e to see the game with true unbiased eyes.

[diplomancer]

"Not breaking the game system" is in no way, shape, or form, the same thing as "not giving them a mechanical advantage that they would not have otherwise". The game system is robust enough to give Druids that mechanical advantage, true (heck, it's robust enough to give free flying at level 1, of course it's robust enough for a few points of AC to a class that already gets very little for being in melee in the first place).

But no, the designers have never stated that letting druids wear metal armor is not giving them a mechanical advantage that they wouldn't have if you don't let them (obviously it does), just that this mechanical advantage does not break the game (which no one has claimed it does).

They are simply letting DMs, who might want to do it but are afraid of the game consequences, know: "if you want to do it, do it. It won't break your game". It's fully in the "empowering DMs" view of 5e. Notice that they say "if you feel strongly... talk with your DM" not "if you feel strongly... do it and let the DM come up with the consequences". The decision is still entirely at the DM's hands, because it's a house rule (not that there is anything wrong with that)

[stoutstien]

"Not breaking the game system" is in no way, shape, or form, the same thing as "not giving them a mechanical advantage that they would not have otherwise". The game system is robust enough to give Druids that mechanical advantage, true (heck, it's robust enough to give free flying at level 1, of course it's robust enough for a few points of AC to a class that already gets very little for being in melee in the first place).

But no, the designers have never stated that letting druids wear metal armor is not giving them a mechanical advantage that they wouldn't have if you don't let them (obviously it does), just that this mechanical advantage does not break the game (which no one has claimed it does).

I think the problem is the term mechanical advantage. Advantage in comparison to what? Obviously more AC us better than not but is it better than similar builds/ classes? I have to use cleric because they are basically the same class and I can't see anything out of line.

[micahaphone]

I've only played a smidge of pathfinder, and plenty of 5E. Did druids in previous editions have restrictions against metal weapons too, or has it always been only armor?

A wiki claims that in BECMI D&D, druids were a level 10 prestige class for clerics, and "This presented them with a bunch of new character restrictions, mandating that they live in the wilderness and forbidding them from using metal weapons or armor"

I found this site that appears to be a copy of the AD&D rules:

Their spells are more powerful as attacks than clerics, and they can use a greater variety of weapons (the restriction against drawing blood does not apply), but they may not use any metallic armor or shield. Since such metallic protections would prevent the druid from being able to perform his magic, he may only wear leather or padded armor or none, and may carry only wood shields.

So druid was an offshoot of cleric, but now could use any weapons but no metal armor, and using metal armor stops you from spellcasting.

As much as I distrust the dandwiki.com, they claim this is 3E SRD:

Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, halfspear, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, and sling. Their spiritual oaths prohibit them from using weapons other than these. They are proficient with light and medium armors but are prohibited from wearing metal armor (thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor). They are skilled with shields but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or wields a prohibited weapon is unable to use any of her magical powers while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. (Note: A druid can use wooden items that have been altered by the ironwood spell so that they function as though they were steel.)

similar rules, and here's where we get the specific weapons list, but no explicit ban to metal weapons. I could see a knapped stone dagger or spear(s), but I'd be pressed to think of a scimitar or sickle that's not made of metal.


Just grabbing from a wiki, it looks like 4E gave armor proficiency in "Cloth, leather, hide", and simple weapons. Maybe I just don't know enough aobut 4E, but I'm not finding any mention of metal in this wiki.


-----------------------------------------------

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?

[redwizard007]

I'm not going to quote Eftexar's whole post just to show support for the whole thing with a sentence or two, but please take this as a thank you for expressing that so eloquently.



I am, however, going to add this: "Because I Said So!" is essentially all the backing "Druids will not wear metal armor" has, and it's insufficient, nay, unacceptable there for the same reasons. If anything, that's the PHB acting in bad faith and without respect, and long before any posters in this thread or other threads on the same topic were accusing each other (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally obtuse.

I think you guys are splitting hairs. The issue is not "druids can't/won't wear metal armor because I told you so." The problem is the lack of LISTED repercussions and reasoning behind it. That's just poor design and editing.

Is there a good reason for druids not to wear armor? Maybe, I dont know, (and yes that bothers me too.) Is it the couple points of "free" AC? Seems unlikely. Is it an issue with wildshape? It could be, but poorly written rules didn't spell that out. Purely thematic? Most likely, but no more so than barbarians' armor restrictions.

The truth is, allowing druids to use metal armor is a really minor tweak and can be easily worked into the lore just as easily as rules could be instituted to create actual drawbacks and limits on druid abilities when wearing metal armor. Neither is wrong. Just different approaches to solving the same problem.

[Misterwhisper]

I've only played a smidge of pathfinder, and plenty of 5E. Did druids in previous editions have restrictions against metal weapons too, or has it always been only armor?

A wiki claims that in BECMI D&D, druids were a level 10 prestige class for clerics, and "This presented them with a bunch of new character restrictions, mandating that they live in the wilderness and forbidding them from using metal weapons or armor"

I found this site that appears to be a copy of the AD&D rules:


So druid was an offshoot of cleric, but now could use any weapons but no metal armor, and using metal armor stops you from spellcasting.

As much as I distrust the dandwiki.com, they claim this is 3E SRD:



similar rules, and here's where we get the specific weapons list, but no explicit ban to metal weapons. I could see a knapped stone dagger or spear(s), but I'd be pressed to think of a scimitar or sickle that's not made of metal.


Just grabbing from a wiki, it looks like 4E gave armor proficiency in "Cloth, leather, hide", and simple weapons. Maybe I just don't know enough aobut 4E, but I'm not finding any mention of metal in this wiki.


-----------------------------------------------

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?

Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

No bows because that is a hunter's weapon.
Crossbows are just more advances bows.
Other weapons are implements of war, not nature other than certain hammers or maybe a pick.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

No bows because that is a hunter's weapon.
Crossbows are just more advances bows.
Other weapons are implements of war, not nature other than certain hammers or maybe a pick.

I think scimitar is just to cover all curved blades. Shotels are just big sickles.

It's a problem with druids being both a very vague yet very specific RP niche.

[NNescio]

So way back in BECMI d&d, druids had to eschew all signs of civilization, living in nature and not using any metal. AD&D is mum about weapons, keeps the armor restriction, and 3E mentions explicit weapons that a druid will use.
I'm curious as to the lore/reasoning of these choices. I can understand the 1st ed "no civilization, no metal at all" for a nature caster, and 3E really puts a sacred emphasis on the weapons and armor. Why are those weapons okay with druids? A sickle has a harvest theme, spears and daggers are feasibly made primal technology with stone knapping, but scimitars?

Yeah, scimitars made no sense to me either. The others are all very native and natural weapons one could make on their own in the wild, but a scimitar is completely different than all of those.

Spears: Sure, stick with a pointy rock maybe even obsidian.
Sickle: Yeah, it is a farming tool.
Club: Well it is just a big stick or whittled log, so sure.
Sling: Does not get much more old school than that.
Dart: Tiny little spear
Dagger: Simple work tool and survival tool.
Scimitar: Requires training as a blacksmith and not just simple weapon either, it is a sharp curved weapon that takes some work.

It's supposed to approximate an Iberian falcata, or one of those (nameless) Celtic curved swords that might have inspired the falcata. Either of those fits the time period and region where real-life druids used to operate. Though admittedly there were no documented evidence of druids using actual weapons, and druids were 'priests', not warriors anyway, so they wouldn't be expected to wield a weapon of war, but eh... acceptable liberties (like giving the Cleric weapon proficiencies).

Calling it falcata would make people go "huh", and "Celtic curved sword" isn't exactly... marketable, so that's probably why they picked the nearest equivalent sword that most people would be aware of and called it a "scimitar".

[KorvinStarmast]

I think scimitar is just to cover all curved blades. Shotels are just big sickles.

It's a problem with druids being both a very vague yet very specific RP niche.

And very little is actually known about them, as they kept few records of their own.

I go into some detail here.

A few points:
a. I first played a druid in D&D in 1976; OD&D, Eldritch Wizardry Druid. Metal armor forbidden, and the only weapons and armor allowed were:

Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor. Druids may use those magical items not otherwise proscribed to them which are usable by "all classes" and all those items normally usable by clerics, excluding all clerical items of a written nature (scrolls, books, etc.).

b. As to records from a Roman contemporary to historical druids ...
Pliny recorded the use of using golden sickles to harvest mistletoe. Book 16: The Natural History of the Forest Trees. The Druids--for that is the name they give to their magicians -- held nothing more sacred than the mistletoe and the tree that bears it, supposing always that tree to be the robur. The mistletoe ... when found, is gathered ... fifth day of the moon ... Clad in a white robe ... cuts the mistletoe with a golden sickle.

c. From the dragonsfoot web site, a discussion with EGG.
Question:

Just a question that stretches back down the eons to 1e.: why do druids use scimitars? It just seems curious with the Celtic connection.

Answer

It is because the scimitar is as close a sword weapon I could come up with to match the druids' mistletoe-harvesting sickle. Cheers, Gary

Link

[intregus]

What makes a druid a druid? Can I mechanically be a level 1 character and a level 1 ranger and call myself a druid?

Can I play a rogue class and call myself a fighter? Can I play a druid class and call myself a wizard?

Whether or not druids wear metal armor is a lore thing not a mechanics thing. Seeing as how wotc creates content I'm sure they were not thinking that allowing a druid to where a breast plate was OP and something they shouldn't be allowed to do.

[Misterwhisper]

What makes a druid a druid? Can I mechanically be a level 1 character and a level 1 ranger and call myself a druid?

You can call yourself whatever your want.

I have seen multiple Paladins call themselves, templars, priests, crusaders, or whatever.

Your character could call himself by whatever name fits their personality.