Druid Armour

[nedwasatool]

Would a druid be able to use armour made from the scaly footed gastropod? It is a snail that dwells near lava vents in the ocean and incorporates iron in its shell.

[J-H]

Ask your DM.

I'd say yes.

[Foolwise]

If your DM says yes be sure to cast Stoneskin using hematite.

[strangebloke]

The armor restriction is dumb and shouldn't be a thing anyway.

IMO, anyway.

Ask your DM.

[Naanomi]

Depends on GM, setting, and perhaps the druid themselves

[Kuulvheysoon]

It's become something of a running joke that my campaigns always seem to have a set of ankheg half-plate (or breastplate) floating around at about 5th level.

If I was your DM, I'd probably congratulate you on being creative, tbh.

[8wGremlin]

The armor restriction is dumb and shouldn't be a thing anyway.

IMO, anyway.

Ask your DM.

I totally agree, it's a hold over cultural thing.

ore is a part of earth, so melting ore into a more pure form and making armour out of it, is no more non-druidic than killing an animal, skinning it, stretching, and tanning it. to then stitching it in to armour.

[strangebloke]

I totally agree, it's a hold over cultural thing.

ore is a part of earth, so melting ore into a more pure form and making armour out of it, is no more non-druidic than killing an animal, skinning it, stretching, and tanning it. to then stitching it in to armour.

yup. It's also a classic case of "punish someone by making it annoying." At the end of the day the mechanical impact here is that you're going to get armor made from some kind of exotic material, usually a bug, which honestly probably isn't on-theme at all. Heck, I would pretty strongly argue that armor made from monstrosities and aberrations is much more unnatural than any kind of plate armor.

I think the main reason this rule is in place is to distinguish them from clerics, but if that's the goal I believe the solution would be easier. Take away their proficiencies and handle their AC through spells like is done with wizards. Make Barkskin last for eight hours and not require concentration (it already shouldn't require concentration)

[Townopolis]

I think the main reason this rule is in place is to distinguish them from clerics, but if that's the goal I believe the solution would be easier. Take away their proficiencies and handle their AC through spells like is done with wizards. Make Barkskin last for eight hours and not require concentration (it already shouldn't require concentration)

I like this variant, or maybe even just give druids a feature called Barkskin that gives them a 16 AC while not wearing armor full stop (so that you don't have a spell slot tax on your AC).

[strangebloke]

I like this variant, or maybe even just give druids a feature called Barkskin that gives them a 16 AC while not wearing armor full stop (so that you don't have a spell slot tax on your AC).

Also works. Maybe even something like 13+proficiency.

I just really don't like how if you somehow get heavy armor prof, you suddenly have to go bug-hunting. Doesn't feel organic and while bug armor is cool for some characters... its not very fitting for others. I realize that other creatures than bugs can get used in theory but most DMs I've seen have used chitin over against other options.

[Naanomi]

Or carve wooden armor, or perhaps stone armor (one of the published adventures has a stone breastplate)... Classically avarial make glass armor...

[Dork_Forge]

I think the main reason this rule is in place is to distinguish them from clerics, but if that's the goal I believe the solution would be easier. Take away their proficiencies and handle their AC through spells like is done with wizards. Make Barkskin last for eight hours and not require concentration (it already shouldn't require concentration)

I think it's also meant to be a balancing point, every Druid gets Wildshape, this is effectively access to *some* medium armors rather than all on a class that has a lot of kinda temp hp every day.

I actually like the rule, the Stars Druid in one of my games uses a shield all of the time and has an AC of 17 and is on the hunt to make better armor.

It's a nice sidequest that's handed to you, but they really don't need the extra AC.

I think it may have been better to just give them medium without shields tbh, I don't understand why Druids would be naturals with shields but Warlocks and Sorcerers wouldn't.

[strangebloke]

Or carve wooden armor, or perhaps stone armor (one of the published adventures has a stone breastplate)... Classically avarial make glass armor...
All good! When I'm talking about chitin, I'm just speaking to how DMs have handled it at my tables. I certainly wish they'd allowed more options.

I think it's also meant to be a balancing point, every Druid gets Wildshape, this is effectively access to *some* medium armors rather than all on a class that has a lot of kinda temp hp every day.

I actually like the rule, the Stars Druid in one of my games uses a shield all of the time and has an AC of 17 and is on the hunt to make better armor.

It's a nice sidequest that's handed to you, but they really don't need the extra AC.

I think it may have been better to just give them medium without shields tbh, I don't understand why Druids would be naturals with shields but Warlocks and Sorcerers wouldn't.

People say it was done for balance, but was it? Is the druid made playable or unplayable because of 2 AC one way or another? Does the extra HP gained by (non-combat viable) wildshape uses really factor into consideration here? There's nothing saying that for example half-plate has to be made with steel. Sure it is by default, but as Naanomi pointed out, it'd be reasonable to make armor from wood or stone, indeed, this was done historically and is also done in the context of official published DND material.

Its all left up to DM fiat. One DM might say "oh, sure, stone is fine, but as a downside it weighs twice as much" or another might say "sure, you can use ankheg chitin, but only the bug-cutters of Lothordoerer know how to make it into armor." Yet another DM might say "no, we're not sidetracking for such a thing." All three of these options are unpleasant for various reasons, but the root of the problem is that the rules are genuinely unclear about their intent. Why on earth is the druid proficient with all medium armor, but only able to wear hide. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just give them proficiency with "hide, leather, and padded armor" and call it a day?

[Dork_Forge]

People say it was done for balance, but was it? Is the druid made playable or unplayable because of 2 AC one way or another? Does the extra HP gained by (non-combat viable) wildshape uses really factor into consideration here? There's nothing saying that for example half-plate has to be made with steel. Sure it is by default, but as Naanomi pointed out, it'd be reasonable to make armor from wood or stone, indeed, this was done historically and is also done in the context of official published DND material.

Its all left up to DM fiat. One DM might say "oh, sure, stone is fine, but as a downside it weighs twice as much" or another might say "sure, you can use ankheg chitin, but only the bug-cutters of Lothordoerer know how to make it into armor." Yet another DM might say "no, we're not sidetracking for such a thing." All three of these options are unpleasant for various reasons, but the root of the problem is that the rules are genuinely unclear about their intent. Why on earth is the druid proficient with all medium armor, but only able to wear hide. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just give them proficiency with "hide, leather, and padded armor" and call it a day?

On the balance: It's not going to make or break anything, it's a tweak point if anything, but if that attitude is taken to everything, well then what balance there is falls away quickly.

I disagree that a standard Druid's Wildshape isn't combat suitable, I mean any Druid can cast Call Lightning and hide in their Wildshape as a Black Bear (+19 HP) or a brown bear (+34hp) from levels 4 and 8 respectively.

When other caster classes run out of slots their options are cantrip or medicore weapon use, the Druid gets the option of just being a monster for a while.

And since Wildshape lasts for hours upon hours, the action to shape into a creature doesn't really matter if you're expecting more fights to any degree: "Hard day in the nearest dungeon, the party is all injured, low on (or out of) hit dice, potions and every other resource. Out of an abundance of caution the Druid burns their plentiful Wildshapes on taking the meatiest form they can and taking point. The form may go down, but it would have saved the life of one or more PCs."

Of course things are different now with all the alt uses, but that's the PHB and XGtE thoughts at least.

ARmor out of different materials:

Yeah you can totally do that, I personally hit a bit of a wall of: if you can make it out of these things... then why is the standard metal? Surely some people would be doing it for one reason or another.

Then there's the nothing says it has to be steel, well... the PHB does, the armor known as half plate that gives 15+Dex(2) AC is defined as being steel. If you make the same design out of a different material, it isn't the same item anymore, it might give the same AC with additional properties (likth Mithril and Adamantine) or it might just not work as well. Whenever you depart from the PHB you are making a call to go against what it says it is.

I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, I'm literally dealing with a player doing that right now, but to say the PHB doens't say it has to be isn't going to work for everyone, especially because it does define it with metal.

[strangebloke]

On the balance: It's not going to make or break anything, it's a tweak point if anything, but if that attitude is taken to everything, well then what balance there is falls away quickly.

I disagree that a standard Druid's Wildshape isn't combat suitable, I mean any Druid can cast Call Lightning and hide in their Wildshape as a Black Bear (+19 HP) or a brown bear (+34hp) from levels 4 and 8 respectively.

Are you asserting that the game is balanced currently? That's more than I'm willing to argue for. As it stands I would argue that 2 AC is lost in the noise when comparing the druid between its peers, the cleric and the bard.

Wildshape gives you a lot of extra health, yes, but I maintain its impractical because of the opportunity cost it usually represents. Using an action in the middle of combat to turn into a bear is usually going to be a waste of time unless you're low health, and running around as a bear all day limits your ability to do fullcaster things. IME non-moon wildshape is mostly used for utility, scouting, and sometimes an emergency heal, moreso than as a real combat thing. But I've not had many druids at my table, so maybe that's the problem.

Anyway, that's a digression. The real point is that the current ruling is confusing and lacks direction, and leaves a lot up to fiat. I'd much prefer they just explicitly limit proficiency to the non-metal armors.


Armor out of different materials:

Yeah you can totally do that, I personally hit a bit of a wall of: if you can make it out of these things... then why is the standard metal? Surely some people would be doing it for one reason or another.

Then there's the nothing says it has to be steel, well... the PHB does, the armor known as half plate that gives 15+Dex(2) AC is defined as being steel. If you make the same design out of a different material, it isn't the same item anymore, it might give the same AC with additional properties (likth Mithril and Adamantine) or it might just not work as well. Whenever you depart from the PHB you are making a call to go against what it says it is.

I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, I'm literally dealing with a player doing that right now, but to say the PHB doens't say it has to be isn't going to work for everyone, especially because it does define it with metal.

The "why don't other people use [other material]" answer is pretty easy to resolve

its uncommon/hard to get (chitin)
its hard to work with (ironwood)
its too heavy (stone)

There's no problem from a verisimilitude POV if the druids have their own armorers who specialize in non-metal armors that can approach the effectiveness of metal armors. It makes sense as something they'd try to do. Why wouldn't they? Maybe even say that they can't get 'top tier' armor, maybe even they cap out at splint and scale mail with their ironwood. In point of fact, I would as a player argue that being strictly limited to "the armors, as they are described in the PHB" is pretty restrictive. IF a samurai has armor of wood why can't I?

Which is the problem isn't it? It all comes down to fiat, and different people are going to have different expectation, which leaves druids in an ugly place, ESPECIALLY if you see this as an important balance point. I'm not saying this is THE reason why druids are less played, but I'm guessing its a reason.

[Theodoxus]

I'd be ok with the proposed change to Barkskin, it's a pretty crap spell, basically useful for upping your AC in wildshape at the risk of losing concentration. But I wouldn't want a monk/barbarian type automatic armor boost as that would natively invalidate some interesting beast options. At least as a spell, even as a long lasting mage armor type spell, it has a cost. Grabbing unarmored defense via multiclassing also has a cost.

OTOH, if instead of wildshape allowing you to transform into any beast you've studied, it instead offered Tasha's Summons/Ranger Beastmaster like 'generic' beast builds; a recon/scout option, a melee option, a swimming option and a flying option that likewise used the druid's PB to increase stats... then I could get behind a baseline unarmored defense for the druid stacking. Especially if was something like a static AC 14, stacks with PB. That would grant your Barkskin AC 16 as a baseline and then tops out at 20. Might need to dial back the 'onion druid' at 20th level, but that's something that should have happened anyway...

[Amnestic]

Also druids being able to use metal weapons but not metal armour is incongruous. Surely if they're that much against metalwork then weapons should also be off limits? Instead not only do they get proficiency in them, the scimitar is specifically called out as a weapon in their starting kit options.

[Sigreid]

Also druids being able to use metal weapons but not metal armour is incongruous. Surely if they're that much against metalwork then weapons should also be off limits? Instead not only do they get proficiency in them, the scimitar is specifically called out as a weapon in their starting kit options.

Historically they could only use metal weapons with ritual significance.

[Eriol]

melting ore into a more pure form
Because pedantry, "melting ore into a more pure form" is not anything like what the smelting process involves.

Is water non-pure because it contains both hydrogen and oxygen? If not, then why is iron oxide any less "pure" a substance?

Smelting is not equal to purification. Fundamentally it's a chemical change, that historically (and in many modern forms) exploits the extreme reductive power of carbon monoxide to rip the oxygen off of the iron oxide to produce elemental iron. That's not purification at all.

As for the original topic, I'm OK with whatever somebody wants to do. I think the ambiguity itself is bad, but that's me. I like the stoneskin of hematite btw, though I might go for Martinsite. ;)

[Sigreid]

Because pedantry, "melting ore into a more pure form" is not anything like what the smelting process involves.

Is water non-pure because it contains both hydrogen and oxygen? If not, then why is iron oxide any less "pure" a substance?

Smelting is not equal to purification. Fundamentally it's a chemical change, that historically (and in many modern forms) exploits the extreme reductive power of carbon monoxide to rip the oxygen off of the iron oxide to produce elemental iron. That's not purification at all.

As for the original topic, I'm OK with whatever somebody wants to do. I think the ambiguity itself is bad, but that's me. I like the stoneskin of hematite btw, though I might go for Martinsite. ;)

Not to mention, to create steel from iron you're actually introducing a specific impurity throughout the metal.

[strangebloke]

I think the easy solutions are as follows:


Druids lose armor proficiencies until they just have the animal types, Barkskin gives flat 15 AC but lasts for 8 hours and doesn't need concentration (maybe works with shields)
Druids retain all proficiencies, but the "no metal" thing is instead a line item for wildshape: When you change forms, you can't absorb any metal object into your new form beyond a certain weight.
Druids get to stomp around in metal half-plate and everyone gets over it.
Druids get to access stone/wood/chitinous half-plate which is slightly worse but still, everyone gets over it.


All these options have their pros and cons IMO, personally I'm a fan of 4 but only giving them light armor and shields by default.

[Captain Panda]

The problem with the druid armor rule is that it is entirely an "ask your DM" sort of deal. I hate it when a "rule" like this gives the DM no real guidance.

[strangebloke]

The problem with the druid armor rule is that it is entirely an "ask your DM" sort of deal. I hate it when a "rule" like this gives the DM no real guidance.

Precisely. The point of the rules is to offer structure to your game. We can do pure freeform RP, but don't charge me for a game system that works that way. Combat in DND is particularly crunchy for this exact reason. Its very hard to make combat interesting without structured rules.

there's so much ambiguity. We're not even told for example if studded leather is metal enough to count as 'made of' metal or not.

[Aimeryan]

The problem with the druid armor rule is that it is entirely an "ask your DM" sort of deal. I hate it when a "rule" like this gives the DM no real guidance.

Welcome to 5e!

[stoutstien]

The problem with the druid armor rule is that it is entirely an "ask your DM" sort of deal. I hate it when a "rule" like this gives the DM no real guidance.
Lol

Might want to reacquiant yourself with the first 10 or so pages of the PHB.

[Sigreid]

The problem with the druid armor rule is that it is entirely an "ask your DM" sort of deal. I hate it when a "rule" like this gives the DM no real guidance.

But there is guidance. The guidance is that their religious beliefs will prevent them from sheathing themselves in metal armor. The debate is some number of people don't want to comply with that and some of those spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to convince their DM to ignore it.

Edit: and the WoTC position is ultimately "It's your game, if you don't like it at your table, do what you want".

[strangebloke]

But there is guidance. The guidance is that their religious beliefs will prevent them from sheathing themselves in metal armor. The debate is some number of people don't want to comply with that and some of those spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to convince their DM to ignore it.

Edit: and the WoTC position is ultimately "It's your game, if you don't like it at your table, do what you want".

Does studded leather count as metal armor? Can normally-metal armor be made in another way?

[Naanomi]

Does studded leather count as metal armor?
Depends on what the studs are made of

[JNAProductions]

But there is guidance. The guidance is that their religious beliefs will prevent them from sheathing themselves in metal armor. The debate is some number of people don't want to comply with that and some of those spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to convince their DM to ignore it.

Edit: and the WoTC position is ultimately "It's your game, if you don't like it at your table, do what you want".

Just like Paladins won’t do evil?
Or Wizards won’t ignore an opportunity to gain knowledge?

Why do Druids specifically have a purely proscriptive restriction, while no other class does?

[elyktsorb]

I love seeing the metal armor thing come up because it's super dumb and the 'only' thing I have ever found in my entirety of researching the topic is..

Back in the earliest editions druid's power was sort of attributed to be kind of 'fey' like and iron is thing fey don't like (in some interpretations anyway) and so the point was that donning 'metal' (aka iron) armor would prevent them from spell casting.

I mean I have always enjoyed the idea of Druid's wearing 'non metal' armor, especially since said armor's you get usually end up being better than metal anyway, but that's the thing, if these 'exotic' armors really were that good, why wouldn't more people use them?

Basically it's self defeating, by the time you want to upgrade your armor as a druid, you've either got enough dosh or are high enough level to just go make that happen as opposed to it being a big deal to get done.

I like some peoples points that the druid should go armorless and just have like barkskin protection and stuff, but I think it should be an option since to me a Druid isn't just about being nature related, they use all parts of nature. (Which is why they should be able to use metal armor btw, it's like if all burrowing creatures were off limits because they live underground lol) So they would still make use of armor they have.

ALSO the whole 'can't wear metal armor' argument falls apart completely because they can use sodding metal weapons can't they?

Oh I'll gladly use this Scimitar someone clearly had to smelt, but this chain mail? Oh no, I can't 'wear' metal, I can only use it for offense (disregarding all the other times I use any metal things, like a cup, or silverware, or gosh dang currency)

[Sigreid]

Just like Paladins won’t do evil?
Or Wizards won’t ignore an opportunity to gain knowledge?

Why do Druids specifically have a purely proscriptive restriction, while no other class does?

I'm not arguing for or against it, just refuting the no guidance claim. Lots of religious people have restrictions they follow that will not cause them any harm if they break them, but they still follow them because it's part of their religion. I don't think it matters what any table does, and as for whether the the armors can be made out of other materials? That depends entirely on the DM's campaign.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Wait, you mean you let the clerics at your tables use edged weapons?

[strangebloke]

I'm not arguing for or against it, just refuting the no guidance claim. Lots of religious people have restrictions they follow that will not cause them any harm if they break them, but they still follow them because it's part of their religion. I don't think it matters what any table does, and as for whether the the armors can be made out of other materials? That depends entirely on the DM's campaign.
It's not no guidance, its worse. It's ambiguous guidance. The problem isn't that "bad powergamer players want to circumvent the clear intention of the rules," the problem is that the current guidance creates lots of situations where

a player is dissuaded from playing a druid because they don't like the idea of being forced to use crappy armor like hide, even while their DM would allow them to easily circumvent this rule.
a player expects to be allowed to wear non-metal half-plate but the DM kiboshes it leading to resentment on both sides (particularly troublesome if the character multiclassed into druid from fighter for example)
a player assumes studded leather is fine because 'rivets and spikes' could just as easily be bone or something else.



Wait, you mean you let the clerics at your tables use edged weapons?

exactly. There used to be loads of these restrictions, but only this one remains. Used to be arcane magic was its own thing and couldn't be used in armor. Used to be clerics couldn't have edged weapons. Used to be Monks and Paladins couldn't multiclass normally. Used to be Paladins had long restrictive rules like "can't get flanking bonus." Used to be Druids couldn't tolerate steel armor, and... it still is!!!

Personally, I have always hated such fluff restrictions, and it makes little sense in the context of the modern DND paradigm. Druids all hate metal? I had a Mountain Dwarf Fighter who was obsessed with the natural elements, gold specifically, and had the hermit feature which had revealed to him the eruption of a great volcano in the near future. When I multiclassed into wildfire druid, I was told (after I multiclassed) that metal armor was no bueno, and I had to wear bug armor "for the flavor." Moreover, I had to find a source of that immediately because that was all my AC. I'm not mad at my DM and that campaign has long since ceased, but the problem is IMO obvious.

It's a relic of an older edition and its stupid.

[Telok]

The druid's dillemma...

Verboten: Finding a natural copper nugget, using two river stones to bash it into a circle, strapping it to your arm and calling it a shield.

Hunky-dory: Using ghouls to run an open pit gold mine, using the mercury and cyanide extraction processes, wearing head-to-toe cloth of gold extracted by despoiling nature.

[Sigreid]

It's not no guidance, its worse. It's ambiguous guidance. The problem isn't that "bad powergamer players want to circumvent the clear intention of the rules," the problem is that the current guidance creates lots of situations where

a player is dissuaded from playing a druid because they don't like the idea of being forced to use crappy armor like hide, even while their DM would allow them to easily circumvent this rule.
a player expects to be allowed to wear non-metal half-plate but the DM kiboshes it leading to resentment on both sides (particularly troublesome if the character multiclassed into druid from fighter for example)
a player assumes studded leather is fine because 'rivets and spikes' could just as easily be bone or something else.




exactly. There used to be loads of these restrictions, but only this one remains. Used to be arcane magic was its own thing and couldn't be used in armor. Used to be clerics couldn't have edged weapons. Used to be Monks and Paladins couldn't multiclass normally. Used to be Paladins had long restrictive rules like "can't get flanking bonus." Used to be Druids couldn't tolerate steel armor, and... it still is!!!

Personally, I have always hated such fluff restrictions, and it makes little sense in the context of the modern DND paradigm. Druids all hate metal? I had a Mountain Dwarf Fighter who was obsessed with the natural elements, gold specifically, and had the hermit feature which had revealed to him the eruption of a great volcano in the near future. When I multiclassed into wildfire druid, I was told (after I multiclassed) that metal armor was no bueno, and I had to wear bug armor "for the flavor." Moreover, I had to find a source of that immediately because that was all my AC. I'm not mad at my DM and that campaign has long since ceased, but the problem is IMO obvious.

It's a relic of an older edition and its stupid.

Again, I have not comment on the restriction itself, but it's not ambiguous at all. It is pretty clear what the default position is. That you don't like something or think it's unfair doesn't make it ambiguous.

[JNAProductions]

Again, I have not comment on the restriction itself, but it's not ambiguous at all. It is pretty clear what the default position is. That you don't like something or think it's unfair doesn't make it ambiguous.

What happens if a Druid dons metal armor? If the rule was “Druids cannot use their class features, including spellcasting, while in metal armor,” I’d still think it’s dumb, but it would be clear.

As-is… there’s no guidance for what happens.

[elyktsorb]

What happens if a Druid dons metal armor? If the rule was “Druids cannot use their class features, including spellcasting, while in metal armor,” I’d still think it’s dumb, but it would be clear.

As-is… there’s no guidance for what happens.

Personally I find it worse because it says (in the phb I have at least) that druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal. Which sucks because this means it's dumping the 'why' on the player. Doesn't matter what the reason is, if your character is a druid you will not wear metal armor.

It doesn't specify 'why' you won't wear the armor, and having other characters ask about it makes your character sound dumb as heck.


Also means that if there's armor that a druid doesn't recognize as metal, let's say someone enchanted some Half Plate so that it looks like it's leather armor instead, or that it looks like it's not made of metal (it could look like stone half plate to explain the weight), if the Druid never 'knows' this armor is made of metal, they can wear it, and since there's no penalties for them actually wearing metal armor, there's no reason they would ever think to check it because it's not like wearing it hinders them.

[Dork_Forge]

Colour me curious:

How much has this actually been a problem at the table for folks vs this as a stupid thing when you think about it with hypotheticals branching out from there?

On a Druid wearing glamoured armour: I can see where this comes from, but it says they won't wear metal armor, not they won't knowingly wear it. In a world where they can shift and alter their form and cast spells, inherently knowing to not put something on, or being instinctively resistant to it is hardly a stretch.

On AC: Whilst some Druids may want a better AC, with access to shields and other spells etc. how many players actually show displeasure with their AC?

So basically: Whilst the way the rule is presented is less than ideal, how often is it actually causing problems for folks?

[Sigreid]

Colour me curious:

How much has this actually been a problem at the table for folks vs this as a stupid thing when you think about it with hypotheticals branching out from there?

On a Druid wearing glamoured armour: I can see where this comes from, but it says they won't wear metal armor, not they won't knowingly wear it. In a world where they can shift and alter their form and cast spells, inherently knowing to not put something on, or being instinctively resistant to it is hardly a stretch.

On AC: Whilst some Druids may want a better AC, with access to shields and other spells etc. how many players actually show displeasure with their AC?

So basically: Whilst the way the rule is presented is less than ideal, how often is it actually causing problems for folks?

It's not been a problem at my table, but we've all been playing for decades. Back when a druid putting on, or being forced into metal armor would lose their powers for a day. Even still, I don't have a problem with a restriction without a price. As I said, people place restrictions on themselves all the time without there being an actual cost to breaking the restriction. The way it's written, it's just a religious tenant. Like not working on a certain day or saying a certain prayer at sunrise or sunset or whatever.

[elyktsorb]

On AC: Whilst some Druids may want a better AC, with access to shields and other spells etc. how many players actually show displeasure with their AC?

So basically: Whilst the way the rule is presented is less than ideal, how often is it actually causing problems for folks?

I think I mentioned this before in this thread. It's not 'really' a problem. By the time you'd want more AC than you get out of your Armor + Shield combo your probably a high enough level to just kill something and make your 'special' non metal armor, or you have enough cash to buy magical naturey armor.

I've played 'plenty' of Druid's so far (and pretty much every DM i've ever had has let me use studded leather) and the 'not wearing metal armor' thing has never been an issue. Though I may be the exception because I play a lot of multiclass druids, and maybe a full caster Druid would appreciate better armor.

As a Druid/Rogue studded was good enough and I skirted between enemies so ac hardly mattered.
As a Druid/Monk I was using unarmored defense so I didn't care about armor.
I did play a Shepard Druid once, though that campaign only went to level 5 so there wasn't much of a chance for me to want better armor.

So while I personally don't think the rule is a huge deal, I do think it's dumb and should not be included in future editions, and it's mostly pointless because even if you aren't allowed to wear metal armor, you'll just get non-metal armor that's just as good or better, though I don't think you should have to go through a whole process to do that, if a character wants an 'interesting' armor I think it should be because they want it as a character, not that they need to get it to circumvent a dumb rule, and if this is a dumb rule everyone is circumventing anyway, why have it at all.

[Naanomi]

If baked in fluff inherent in a class system is so enraging to people, perhaps they'd prefer a classless system? Completely customizable HERO system or the like?

Are people equally enraged over the list of monk weapons? Barbarian rage/casting incompatibility? Rogues being forced to know Cant? Bards and their instrument proficiencies?

[KorvinStarmast]

It's become something of a running joke that my campaigns always seem to have a set of ankheg half-plate (or breastplate) floating around at about 5th level. My players are currently at level seven and had brought some Umber Hulk chitin to some dwarven armorers to have some half plate made from it. I did some DM thinking and a bit of rolling (there's a limited supply, so they can't risk breaking any of the formed pieces, and this is a bespoke suit of armor) - I came up with six weeks to get it right. (The fitting has already happened).
I also have a surprise for the players when they come out of their current extended fight with a small army of bad guys - an NPC (Volo's) Transmuter has showed up in town (for other reasons since he's from half way across the continent) and he's provided sufficient assistance to the dwarves to cut that fabrication time in half. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

Again, I have not comment on the restriction itself, but it's not ambiguous at all. It is pretty clear what the default position is. That you don't like something or think it's unfair doesn't make it ambiguous.
You're repeatedly ignoring my points about what does make it ambiguous
Some armors aren't clearly 'made of' metal. Studded leather is the obvious case here. The existence of non-metal armors is unknown, left up to DM. There are reasonable arguments for it existing form a fluff perspective. It existed IRL, some tribes won't have metal, druids would theoretically have incentive to invent such a thing if it doesn't exist, many non-metal armors exist in the game already via side materials. But it isn't official, which leads to you saying that only powergamers do this. What happens if a druid puts on metal armor accidently? Do they lose class features a la a paladin?

It's a very unclear space.


Colour me curious:

How much has this actually been a problem at the table for folks vs this as a stupid thing when you think about it with hypotheticals branching out from there?
Already brought it up once. It's not the most serious problem but it has come up more than once IME - both times I saw a druid in play.

If baked in fluff inherent in a class system is so enraging to people, perhaps they'd prefer a classless system? Completely customizable HERO system or the like?

Are people equally enraged over the list of monk weapons? Barbarian rage/casting incompatibility? Rogues being forced to know Cant? Bards and their instrument proficiencies?
As I already said, I'd be fine if armor containing metal prevented a druid from using wildshape. My issue isn't that its fluff, my issue is that its an ambiguous rule and that the fluff makes no sense.

[Dr. Cliché]

What happens if a Druid dons metal armor? If the rule was “Druids cannot use their class features, including spellcasting, while in metal armor,” I’d still think it’s dumb, but it would be clear.

As-is… there’s no guidance for what happens.


Personally I find it worse because it says (in the phb I have at least) that druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal. Which sucks because this means it's dumping the 'why' on the player. Doesn't matter what the reason is, if your character is a druid you will not wear metal armor.

It doesn't specify 'why' you won't wear the armor, and having other characters ask about it makes your character sound dumb as heck.

Yeah, this is the reason I hate it. If wearing metal armour prevented them from casting spells or wild shaping then at least there would a clear reason for them to avoid it.

But as it stands, there's no reason given as to why every Druid - regardless of type, race, upbringing, experiences etc. - will never wear metal armour, nor what happens if they're forced to.



Lots of religious people have restrictions they follow that will not cause them any harm if they break them, but they still follow them because it's part of their religion.

But Druids don't all serve the same god, so this is the equivalent of saying "Some religions eschew pork, therefore no one who is religious is capable of ever eating pork."

Aside from being flat-out wrong (as not all religions forbid eating pork), it also ignores the fact that religious people may nevertheless stray from the tenants of their religion. To stick with the above example, you might have a religious person who wants to try pork once, just to see what it actually tastes like. Are Druids allowed to try wearing metal armour to see what it feels like? Nope. You might have a religious person who is questioning aspects of his religion or perhaps has a different interpretation of the relevant line(s) of scripture. Is a Druid allowed the same? Nope. Every Druid in existence is unfailingly loyal to this one specific tenant of their god (whichever one they choose to worship, because apparently all of them - even the dwarf ones - enforce this). Then you have the possibility of adverse circumstances. If food is scarce, many religious people may prefer to eat pork rather than starve. While the Druid probably won't be eating his armour, there remains the possibility that wearing metal armour might be vital to a plan, mission or such. Is the Druid allowed to wear metal armour if it might help him save his forest or tribe? Still a hard no, apparently.



I think the easy solutions are as follows:

Druids retain all proficiencies, but the "no metal" thing is instead a line item for wildshape: When you change forms, you can't absorb any metal object into your new form beyond a certain weight.

I quite like this idea, though I also now have an image of a bear with metal armour half-embedded into its flesh. :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

If baked in fluff inherent in a class system is so enraging to people, perhaps they'd prefer a classless system? Completely customizable HERO system or the like?

Are people equally enraged over the list of monk weapons? Barbarian rage/casting incompatibility? Rogues being forced to know Cant? Bards and their instrument proficiencies?

Right. There is no fluff/crunch distinction. It's just as much a rule as anything else, regardless of listed penalties. And it's been explicitly stated that it's not a balance thing, so if a DM wants to change it, there are few (if any) implications. It's on the same order as "wizards learn spells from books" or "clerics gain power from gods" or "monks meditate."

Personally, my setting has the following explanation:
* Druids get their power (ie cast their spells) by allowing nature spirits[1] to enter them and channel the spirit's power through the druid (in exchange for a bit of personal energy, aka the spell slot).
* Worked metal, because it's been heated and hammered and is dense, provides resistance to these nature spirits[2].
* Overall, the effect of wearing metal armor is similar to trying to do something delicate while wearing heavy gloves or trying to focus while a 2-year-old whines in your ear. Can be done, but is unpleasant and to be avoided if possible. Note that since metal weapons don't surround large chunks of the body, the effect is negligible. It's out there at the end of your arm, which isn't what the spirits are inhabiting anyway.

As a result, druids don't wear metal armor. Not can't, not explode if they do, they don't even lose their powers. They just generally don't, because doing so is obnoxious. And the kind of person who becomes a druid anyway (those with strong instinctive and learned connections to the nature spirits) are the kind of people who prioritize that communion over minor things like being better armored.

[1] the term I use is kami, with the explicit caveat that that's a very leaky term. They're the innate essences associated with everything around. Those of living things are much more vital than those associated with rocks (for instance). These kami are not self-aware (in a human sense), but they do have power and a sort of "desire" or "curiosity".
[2] kami "don't like" (to anthropomorphize them) passing through worked metal. They can, but druids who have experimented say that it leaves an "off taste" or "fuzziness" in the communion. Which is distracting. Some have theorized that it's the remnants of the trauma inflicted on the kami of the ore by heating, refining, and beating it into shape. Others disagree.

[Naanomi]

In my setting, the druid circles are real things; globe spanning mystical and political organizations (where bard colleges and ranger lodges are not) that every druid PC is at least tangentially connected to*. The tradition of not wearing metal armor (and to a lesser degree, ideosyncratic weapon choices) is just as important as putting aside conflict to protect groves, respecting titles of other circles, hospitality expectations, shared recognition of sacred days, etc. Break those traditions and expect alienation and maybe even reprisal from other druids; and probably wouldn't even be considered a 'druid' by the community if you persisted.

(*We had one exception: a hermit who's background secret was they 'figured out' druidism in their own and later decoded the secret language. I would have let them wear metal armor but it never came up)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that this, like many other "fluff" elements for which there isn't a clear reason stated, are expected to be handled at the setting level. The rules give an is statement; the settings explain why. And it's very possible that there are mutually-incompatible reasons in various settings. Or even various parts of settings. And that's totally fine. The rules do not prescribe all the details, nor should they. But if we're going to treat rules as authoritative[1], then all rule text gets that same treatment, because there's no rule that defines how to tell the authoritative text from non-authoritative text. Either it's all authoritative or none of it is. Anything else is special pleading.

[1] which I don't--to me, the rule text is a starting place and a shared language. A set of suggestions on how tables might construct actually-authoritative rules for themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my setting, the druid circles are real things; globe spanning mystical and political organizations (where bard colleges and ranger lodges are not) that every druid PC is at least tangentially connected to*. The tradition of not wearing metal armor (and to a lesser degree, ideosyncratic weapon choices) is just as important as putting aside conflict to protect groves, respecting titles of other circles, hospitality expectations, shared recognition of sacred days, etc. Break those traditions and expect alienation and maybe even reprisal from other druids; and probably wouldn't even be considered a 'druid' by the community if you persisted.

(*We had one exception: a hermit who's background secret was they 'figured out' druidism in their own and later decoded the secret language. I would have let them wear metal armor but it never came up) Love your show, that's roughly how I treat such things.

I think that this, like many other "fluff" elements for which there isn't a clear reason stated, are expected to be handled at the setting level. The rules give an is statement; the settings explain why. And it's very possible that there are mutually-incompatible reasons in various settings. Or even various parts of settings. And that's totally fine. The rules do not prescribe all the details, nor should they. But if we're going to treat rules as authoritative[1], then all rule text gets that same treatment, because there's no rule that defines how to tell the authoritative text from non-authoritative text. Either it's all authoritative or none of it is. Anything else is special pleading.

[1] which I don't--to me, the rule text is a starting place and a shared language. A set of suggestions on how tables might construct actually-authoritative rules for themselves. Yeah. The RAW are a point of departure; it's where we start from.

[Sigreid]

You're repeatedly ignoring my points about what does make it ambiguous
Some armors aren't clearly 'made of' metal. Studded leather is the obvious case here. The existence of non-metal armors is unknown, left up to DM. There are reasonable arguments for it existing form a fluff perspective. It existed IRL, some tribes won't have metal, druids would theoretically have incentive to invent such a thing if it doesn't exist, many non-metal armors exist in the game already via side materials. But it isn't official, which leads to you saying that only powergamers do this. What happens if a druid puts on metal armor accidently? Do they lose class features a la a paladin?

It's a very unclear space.


Already brought it up once. It's not the most serious problem but it has come up more than once IME - both times I saw a druid in play.

As I already said, I'd be fine if armor containing metal prevented a druid from using wildshape. My issue isn't that its fluff, my issue is that its an ambiguous rule and that the fluff makes no sense.

There are examples of non-metallic versions of medium and heavy armors in WoTC published materials. Also, back as far as 1e there were creatures such as Bullets that call out that armor can be made from their body parts.

Me as a DM, non metallic medium armor is obtainable. Not on every corner, but if you tell me you're looking for it or a way to make it happen, a little research and you'll get some options. But it is possible that your DM doesn't want druids in half plate. I can't do anything about that.

[strangebloke]

I think that this, like many other "fluff" elements for which there isn't a clear reason stated, are expected to be handled at the setting level. The rules give an is statement; the settings explain why. And it's very possible that there are mutually-incompatible reasons in various settings. Or even various parts of settings. And that's totally fine. The rules do not prescribe all the details, nor should they. But if we're going to treat rules as authoritative[1], then all rule text gets that same treatment, because there's no rule that defines how to tell the authoritative text from non-authoritative text. Either it's all authoritative or none of it is. Anything else is special pleading.

[1] which I don't--to me, the rule text is a starting place and a shared language. A set of suggestions on how tables might construct actually-authoritative rules for themselves.
I feel like I'm going crazy here, but I'll just repeat what I have already said many many times: the problem isn't that its "fluff" the problem is that the level of ambiguity here leads to negative player/DM interactions. Rulings are a basic part of the game, but the ambiguity shouldn't get to the point where it dramatically impacts playstyle and character creation on a mechanical level. I'm fine with (for example) talking to the DM about how my character interprets their oath of conquest, but I'd be far less fine with a prescriptive line item saying "Vengeance paladins only use slashing weapons."

EX 1:
"+1 studded leather? I put it on!"
"You're a druid, you won't do that!"
"what?"
"It's made with metal. Druids don't-"
"It's not made of metal."
"As a druid you know that wearing such a thing as this is wrong."
"Ugh, fine."

EX 2:
"I want to take my next level in druid, I think it really fits with my character and how they've come to see Archdruid Melph as a father figure."
"You're a strength-based fighter, you realize you can't wear metal armor if you become a druid, right?"
"Oh, uh... I was looking online and I saw I might be able to make exotic non-metal armors?"
"Like dragonscale mail? That's going to be a whole sidequest, I don't think the other players will want to do that right now, the main quest is too important."
"We're coming to a major city, surely I cant get someone to make armor out of... bullette chitin. Or something?"
"We're in an archipelago, why were there be bullettes? Why would anyone be making armor out of them? You can't just speak what is functionally a magic item into existence."
"Look, I'm just trying to get my character concept to work! Can't I just... be a bad druid for a few weeks in-game?"
"You're just trying to get around all the rules! Lose the AC or delay multiclassing for a level!"


There are examples of non-metallic versions of medium and heavy armors in WoTC published materials. Also, back as far as 1e there were creatures such as Bullets that call out that armor can be made from their body parts.

Me as a DM, non metallic medium armor is obtainable. Not on every corner, but if you tell me you're looking for it or a way to make it happen, a little research and you'll get some options. But it is possible that your DM doesn't want druids in half plate. I can't do anything about that.

Yeah, that's a fine way to run it, I just think its a problem that entire character concepts hinge on a ruling like this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like I'm going crazy here, but I'll just repeat what I have already said many many times: the problem isn't that its "fluff" the problem is that the level of ambiguity here leads to negative player/DM interactions. Rulings are a basic part of the game, but the ambiguity shouldn't get to the point where it dramatically impacts playstyle and character creation on a mechanical level. I'm fine with (for example) talking to the DM about how my character interprets their oath of conquest, but I'd be far less fine with a prescriptive line item saying "Vengeance paladins only use slashing weapons."

EX 1:
"+1 studded leather? I put it on!"
"You're a druid, you won't do that!"
"what?"
"It's made with metal. Druids don't-"
"It's not made of metal."
"As a druid you know that wearing such a thing as this is wrong."
"Ugh, fine."

EX 2:
"I want to take my next level in druid, I think it really fits with my character and how they've come to see Archdruid Melph as a father figure."
"You're a strength-based fighter, you realize you can't wear metal armor if you become a druid, right?"
"Oh, uh... I was looking online and I saw I might be able to make exotic non-metal armors?"
"Like dragonscale mail? That's going to be a whole sidequest, I don't think the other players will want to do that right now, the main quest is too important."
"We're coming to a major city, surely I cant get someone to make armor out of... bullette chitin. Or something?"
"We're in an archipelago, why were there be bullettes? Why would anyone be making armor out of them? You can't just speak what is functionally a magic item into existence."
"Look, I'm just trying to get my character concept to work! Can't I just... be a bad druid for a few weeks in-game?"
"You're just trying to get around all the rules! Lose the AC or delay multiclassing for a level!"


The ambiguity already exists independent of druids, and already needs rulings. And those rulings should be consistent. See heat metal and rust monsters for two examples of places where the definition of "metal armor" is used. As with all things, talk to the DM in advance and work something out. And since the end result may differ by table/setting/game style, there isn't an answer that can be encoded for all tables. There isn't a "right" answer; even removing the restriction itself changes the nature of the class (and works against lots of tradition), which doesn't work for a lot of people.

I strongly prefer "fluff" based restrictions to mechanically-based ones. Classes are supposed to restrict character building; they're not abstract blobs of mechanics that can get stapled together. Oh, and arguments from multiclassing hold no weight for me, because multiclassing is a variant rule. And one that I think should be disfavored or eliminated (or really reworked entirely). When your "entire character concept" can be summed up as "I get +2 AC", that's...yeah. Not compelling to me.

At a bigger level, I'm totally fine with ambiguity. Because I have zero (or actually less than zero) expectation of character portability. I don't consider the printed rules binding in and of themselves. As I said upthread, they're a starting place for an individual table to have a conversation about what they want to do. Skipping that conversation always leads to heartache, no matter how tightly you think you've defined the rules. Because ambiguity is a natural part of human language, and trying to be more precise actually adds more loopholes. And fosters a culture of loophole hunting and narrow, context-free reading that I find repellant.

[Naanomi]

From a fluff perspective, I am more confused why my woodelf scout knows street slang than I am with why my mystical shaman rocks a primitive style

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, back as far as 1e there were creatures such as Bullets that call out that armor can be made from their body parts. And in the DMG there is dragon hide scale armor that a druid can wear (though it's not going to drop every day).

But it is possible that your DM doesn't want druids in half plate. Which is also fine. World building is ultimately in the DM's court, per PHB page 6. :smallsmile:


I feel like I'm going crazy here, but I'll just repeat what I have already said many many times: the problem isn't that its "fluff" the problem is that the level of ambiguity here leads to negative player/DM interactions. That's a people problem, and no written rule can fix a people problem. If a DM and a player can't work together to come to a shared concept, that's where the problem lies. OoR (Outside of Rules) sort of like OoC (Outside of Character).

And may I again remind all of the 'but it's my concept' players that from a world building perspective, unless your table is all about shared world building (I've played at tables like that, it can be great) most imaginary worlds are orchestrated by the DM. Make what you play fit into the world.

At which point Naanomi's point about a wood elf picking up thieves cant, without a narratively coherent reason for it (such as criminal background), asks both the player and the DM to arrive at "how did this come to pass?" Come up with an inworld answer that makes sense to the both of you.

As I keep repeating, but I'm not going crazy, Chargen is a collaborative effort (This is what is known as a Best Practice).

[strangebloke]

I strongly prefer "fluff" based restrictions to mechanically-based ones. Classes are supposed to restrict character building; they're not abstract blobs of mechanics that can get stapled together. Oh, and arguments from multiclassing hold no weight for me, because multiclassing is a variant rule. And one that I think should be disfavored or eliminated (or really reworked entirely). When your "entire character concept" can be summed up as "I get +2 AC", that's...yeah. Not compelling to me.
It's not just +2 AC, as I've already said in this thread, +2 AC is functionally meaningless on balance when considering the merits of a character. BUT the type of armor you where is a major stylistic decision on the part of a character. Wearing plate or wearing hide is a serious difference aesthetically. Classes limit design to make characters more unique, but character concepts that can break the usual rules of the class because of build investment are more unique, even if the actual mechanical implications are small. People build characters in very convoluted fashions just to be an "Armored Wizard" or something similar and I think that level of personalization (whether advisable or not) is fun.

For example. Consider the world where Druids very simply don't have proficiency in medium armor. Now, the Mountain Dwarf Druid is a unique Druid. He 'is not like other druids.' He gets to stomp around in armor when others don't.

There's potentially a separate problem where medium armor access is too easy in 5e, leading to centralization around that concept if you allow Clerics and Hexblades and multiclassing and feats, but I think in general its more fun to have rules that can (sometimes) be circumvented. The one-level dips are a whole different thing.


At a bigger level, I'm totally fine with ambiguity. Because I have zero (or actually less than zero) expectation of character portability. I don't consider the printed rules binding in and of themselves. As I said upthread, they're a starting place for an individual table to have a conversation about what they want to do. Skipping that conversation always leads to heartache, no matter how tightly you think you've defined the rules. Because ambiguity is a natural part of human language, and trying to be more precise actually adds more loopholes. And fosters a culture of loophole hunting and narrow, context-free reading that I find repellant.
"Language is ambiguous so clarity is impossible and therefore any amount of weird ambiguity is fine" is a take for sure. I would pretty strongly argue that something as simple as "Druids are proficient in light armor and shields" or "Wildshape cannot be used by someone encased in metal armor" would be a lot more clear, wouldn't require more words, and would serve largely the same purpose.


From a fluff perspective, I am more confused why my woodelf scout knows street slang than I am with why my mystical shaman rocks a primitive style
I mean, derail, but thieve's cant is all about being able to speak in code, and that's definitely something a scout would know.


And in the DMG there is dragon hide scale armor that a druid can wear (though it's not going to drop every day).
That's a people problem, and no written rule can fix a people problem. If a DM and a player can't work together to come to a shared concept, that's where the problem lies. OoR (Outside of Rules) sort of like OoC (Outside of Character).

And may I again remind all of the 'but it's my concept' players that from a world building perspective, unless your table is all about shared world building (I've played at tables like that, it can be great) most imaginary worlds are orchestrated by the DM. Make what you play fit into the world.

At which point Naanomi's point about a wood elf picking up thieves cant, without a narratively coherent reason for it (such as criminal background), asks both the player and the DM to arrive at "how did this come to pass?" Come up with an inworld answer that makes sense to the both of you.

As I keep repeating, but I'm not going crazy, Chargen is a collaborative effort (This is what is known as a Best Practice).

I would agree that Chargen is collaborative and that things shouldn't be built in complete isolation. But in general, a lot of chargen is done in isolation. Once you have covered basic topics (custom backgrounds, stat generation, which races are allowed, which feats are allowed, what traits/bonds/flaws your guy has, etc.) you're left with a whole slew of stuff to do. Rolling for HP, picking spells, picking maneuvers, picking feats if they're allowed, choosing your starting gear. Something like this rule has the downside of being very narrow and forgettable. Most campaigns I've played in have zero clarification for this rule or why it exists, and most people just assume their way of handling it is normal. "Well, I can't wear most armor so I'll just play a tortle."

Anyway. :P not a very serious problem I'll admit, I just think that a rule that always benefits from session zero clarification isn't the best rule. I'm glad that the relationship between monks/barbarians and armor is the way it is, for example.

[greenstone]

The armor restriction is dumb and shouldn't be a thing anyway.

It's no dumber than a nap healing all wounds, a 3ft gnome grappling a bear, commoners deadlifting 300lb, barbarians falling 20,000ft without dying, the economy, etc.

[Theodoxus]

For example. Consider the world where Druids very simply don't have proficiency in medium armor. Now, the Mountain Dwarf Druid is a unique Druid. He 'is not like other druids.' He gets to stomp around in armor when others don't.

"Language is ambiguous so clarity is impossible and therefore any amount of weird ambiguity is fine" is a take for sure. I would pretty strongly argue that something as simple as "Druids are proficient in light armor and shields" or "Wildshape cannot be used by someone encased in metal armor" would be a lot more clear, wouldn't require more words, and would serve largely the same purpose.

This was my solution, as well as making hide armor light (I have 12 types of armor, 4 in each category). I'm also adopting the change to Barkskin offered up thread, making it basically "Mage Armor Plus", being base 14 AC instead of 13 (it is a 2nd level spell), but lasts 8 hours, non-conc. One other thing I'm adopting is that if a Druid multiclasses, they don't learn new armor proficiencies. If a character with a class or race that has medium/heavy proficiency MCs into Druid, they lose those proficiencies. Why? To eliminate this argument. How? Same way a Wizard MCing into Life Cleric somehow 'mystically' knows to wear armor? A Druid somehow 'mystically' forgets.


It's no dumber than a nap healing all wounds, a 3ft gnome grappling a bear, commoners deadlifting 300lb, barbarians falling 20,000ft without dying, the economy, etc.

Most of these are handwaved with 'magic'. Which, while I guess is dumb, at least is consistent with playing elf games... if you're sad about magic infused worlds, why are you playing D&D, and not something like Mechwarrior or Shadowrun or Savage Worlds: Modern Teen Angst?

[elyktsorb]

It's no dumber than a nap healing all wounds, a 3ft gnome grappling a bear, commoners deadlifting 300lb, barbarians falling 20,000ft without dying, the economy, etc.

Nah, I think "I'm allowed to use metal to attack things, but not defend myself." is several magnitudes dumber than everything you listed.

[Sigreid]

This is just my perception, but every time I see one of these "the rules are not explicit enough" threads it seems to boil down to the person doesn't trust their DM, the player wants to force their DM to let them do something, or the DM lacks confidence.

[strangebloke]

This was my solution, as well as making hide armor light (I have 12 types of armor, 4 in each category). I'm also adopting the change to Barkskin offered up thread, making it basically "Mage Armor Plus", being base 14 AC instead of 13 (it is a 2nd level spell), but lasts 8 hours, non-conc. One other thing I'm adopting is that if a Druid multiclasses, they don't learn new armor proficiencies. If a character with a class or race that has medium/heavy proficiency MCs into Druid, they lose those proficiencies. Why? To eliminate this argument. How? Same way a Wizard MCing into Life Cleric somehow 'mystically' knows to wear armor? A Druid somehow 'mystically' forgets.

As with a lot of your tweaks I think this is probably a bit more complex than my preference, but you do you.


This is just my perception, but every time I see one of these "the rules are not explicit enough" threads it seems to boil down to the person doesn't trust their DM, the player wants to force their DM to let them do something, or the DM lacks confidence.

"Everyone who has a complaint with the wording of the rules is just trying to powergame" is a very combattive attitude, and it ignores that a lot of my proposed solutions are straight nerfs.

[Dork_Forge]

"Everyone who has a complaint with the wording of the rules is just trying to powergame" is a very combattive attitude, and it ignores that a lot of my proposed solutions are straight nerfs.

Err, I didn't get that from what they were saying at all, even if you interpret the forcing their DM to do something part as that, it was one of three things from their perspective whilst you've whittled their perspective down to a single point that goes against your own.

[Sigreid]

As with a lot of your tweaks I think this is probably a bit more complex than my preference, but you do you.



"Everyone who has a complaint with the wording of the rules is just trying to powergame" is a very combattive attitude, and it ignores that a lot of my proposed solutions are straight nerfs.

Didn't say anything about power gaming. Not every want is about power.

[strangebloke]

Err, I didn't get that from what they were saying at all, even if you interpret the forcing their DM to do something part as that, it was one of three things from their perspective whilst you've whittled their perspective down to a single point that goes against your own.

still basic well-poisoning. "I just assume people who say this aren't honest about their reasoning."

[Sorinth]

It's definitely dumb that they can use metal weapons and tools just fine but not armour/shields. And I certainly don't like the whole non-rule imposing behavioral decisions my character wants to makes. 5e did get a way from a lot of class X must behave in fashion Y and it's been overall a big step forward. This is one of the last remaining holdovers from the early editions where that type of stuff was common. I can quite easily come up with a Druid concept where using/having metal would be integral to the theme such as a Stars druid focused on Starmetal, the metal that comes from meteors crashing into the world. That character should be acquiring and using starmetal including armour.

All that said, I'm not actually against the theme of non-metal for the more standard druids but I'd rather it actually be implemented in a sensical way. As others have suggested having you not be able to absorb metal when wildshaping into a beast would achieve mostly the same effect, Druids in general don't use metal armour/shield but now there's an actual player and character choice, I can use metal armor and as a result have a much better AC, but if I'm ever knocked out of wildshape I'm unarmored. And it would actually make it a real theme, Druids would rarely carry coins. Societies where Druids are central would use a different currency system, and when travelling abroad those Druids would probably end up using something like gemstones.

[Willie the Duck]

It's definitely dumb that they can use metal weapons and tools just fine but not armour/shields. And I certainly don't like the whole non-rule imposing behavioral decisions my character wants to makes. 5e did get a way from a lot of class X must behave in fashion Y and it's been overall a big step forward. This is one of the last remaining holdovers from the early editions where that type of stuff was common.
I generally prefer either the really early edition method of just saying the game effect and being silent on the reasoning (ex: "Restrictions: Magic-users use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may not wear armor nor use shields and may only carry a dagger for a weapon." -Moldvay basic) such that they are ceding the reason to the individual table; or there be explicit consequence-based reasons (druid circles will reject you, you can't cast spells, you have a spell failure chance, etc.). This statement that one's character simply "will not" do something seems
glaring when it is one of the few instances in the game rules where such PC agency excision occurs.

In my own campaigns, I have put all the non-metal armors (hide, gambeson, aketon, buff coats) into the light category (which clearly doesn't mean anything except as a category in the default rules, since there were physically lighter medium armors than the heaviest light armors, and some of the light armors imposed stealth disadvantage whereas some medium did not) and just gave druids light armor proficiency only. If a druid wants to take the moderately armored feat and walk around in half-plate, well then clearly the non-metal armor thing was not a key part of their character concept (and they've paid the mechanical cost for the mechanical benefit). The game has already allowed multiple ways for pure-classed wizards to both wear and cast spells while in armor (and that used to be the ultimate taboo... at least unless you rolled well on the treasure table and got elven chain), exactly why that no-go zone was omitted but the druid armor thing was kept (with no in-rules workaround, other than negating the rule entirely).

[Sorinth]

I generally prefer either the really early edition method of just saying the game effect and being silent on the reasoning (ex: "Restrictions: Magic-users use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may not wear armor nor use shields and may only carry a dagger for a weapon." -Moldvay basic) such that they are ceding the reason to the individual table; or there be explicit consequence-based reasons (druid circles will reject you, you can't cast spells, you have a spell failure chance, etc.). This statement that one's character simply "will not" do something seems
glaring when it is one of the few instances in the game rules where such PC agency excision occurs.

In my own campaigns, I have put all the non-metal armors (hide, gambeson, aketon, buff coats) into the light category (which clearly doesn't mean anything except as a category in the default rules, since there were physically lighter medium armors than the heaviest light armors, and some of the light armors imposed stealth disadvantage whereas some medium did not) and just gave druids light armor proficiency only. If a druid wants to take the moderately armored feat and walk around in half-plate, well then clearly the non-metal armor thing was not a key part of their character concept (and they've paid the mechanical cost for the mechanical benefit). The game has already allowed multiple ways for pure-classed wizards to both wear and cast spells while in armor (and that used to be the ultimate taboo... at least unless you rolled well on the treasure table and got elven chain), exactly why that no-go zone was omitted but the druid armor thing was kept (with no in-rules workaround, other than negating the rule entirely).

Yeah it would've made more sense to simply say Druids are proficient in Light Armor, Hide Armor, and Shields just like how some classes are proficient in Simple Weapons and 1 or 2 specific Martial weapons. Then just have all the exotic bug/dragon scale/etc... type armour be a type of Hide, so proficiency in Medium or Hide allows you to wear it without penalties.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah it would've made more sense to simply say Druids are proficient in Light Armor, Hide Armor, and Shields just like how some classes are proficient in Simple Weapons and 1 or 2 specific Martial weapons. Then just have all the exotic bug/dragon scale/etc... type armour be a type of Hide, so proficiency in Medium or Hide allows you to wear it without penalties.

Or just be proficient in 'medium armors not made out of metal,' or any number of other options. I'm fine with nearly anything (I'm going to houserule it anyways, as me and my groups are not beholden to official rules), but it is just baffling that they went with explicit consequences (disadvantage on any Str/Dex ability checks/saves/attacks , not being able to cast spells, not getting proficiency bonus to attack rolls) with all the other weapon-armor restrictions but went with making a player's character's decisions for them in this one and only case.

[Sigreid]

still basic well-poisoning. "I just assume people who say this aren't honest about their reasoning."

It was more of "The rules are ambiguous when you're trying to figure out where they can break".

[strangebloke]

It was more of "The rules are ambiguous when you're trying to figure out where they can break".

If you compare this restriction to how monk's armor restriction works, its pretty obviously more ambiguous.

[JNAProductions]

If you compare this restriction to how monk's armor restriction works, its pretty obviously more ambiguous.

Echoing this point.

Barbarian: List of abilities that don't work in Heavy armor.
Monk: List of abilities that don't work in any armor.
Wizard: Doesn't natively get armor proficiencies.

All that is clear. Monks and Barbarians don't get to bypass it without losing abilities, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, etc. can bypass their native limitations with feats, multiclassing, racial choices-all opportunity costs, basically.

But Druids? "Will not wear metal armor."
What if I'm playing a Dwarven Earth Druid, who believes in refining the fruits of the earth and using it to their fullest? "Will not."
What if I'm playing a Genasi Star Druid, and have commissioned a suit of Starmetal Armor for 10,000 GP? "Will not."
What if I'm playing someone who conned a Druid circle to learn their secrets, and is perhaps having a crisis of faith all while being hunted by that same Circle? "Will not."

[Sigreid]

Echoing this point.

Barbarian: List of abilities that don't work in Heavy armor.
Monk: List of abilities that don't work in any armor.
Wizard: Doesn't natively get armor proficiencies.

All that is clear. Monks and Barbarians don't get to bypass it without losing abilities, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, etc. can bypass their native limitations with feats, multiclassing, racial choices-all opportunity costs, basically.

But Druids? "Will not wear metal armor."
What if I'm playing a Dwarven Earth Druid, who believes in refining the fruits of the earth and using it to their fullest? "Will not."
What if I'm playing a Genasi Star Druid, and have commissioned a suit of Starmetal Armor for 10,000 GP? "Will not."
What if I'm playing someone who conned a Druid circle to learn their secrets, and is perhaps having a crisis of faith all while being hunted by that same Circle? "Will not."

I'm really not meaning to be combative, but I interpret it in the same context as vegetarians will not eat meat when I read it.

Edit: I also suspect the Nature cleric was meant to be the druid that wears metal armor. But that's just me.

[strangebloke]

I'm really not meaning to be combative, but I interpret it in the same context as vegetarians will not eat meat when I read it.

Edit: I also suspect the Nature cleric was meant to be the druid that wears metal armor. But that's just me.

yeah, but here's the thing: "Vegetarian" isn't a class in 5e.

[JNAProductions]

I'm really not meaning to be combative, but I interpret it in the same context as vegetarians will not eat meat when I read it.

Edit: I also suspect the Nature cleric was meant to be the druid that wears metal armor. But that's just me.

Which is a fine bit of fluff to have for most Druids.

If the PHB said something like "Most Druids, owing to their allegiance to the natural world, will not wear metal armor," that'd be fine. It's not a rule, it's a general setting detail that you can use or not as a player and as a DM. But, given its plaement (I believe it's in the armor proficiency section) it reads like a rule that MUST be followed or explicitly houseruled away-and that's an issue, for me and others.

[Theodoxus]

It's not like WotC doesn't know about the controversy, heck they joked about it in a Sage Advice: What happens if a Druid wears metal armor? - "They explode! Just kidding. Nothing."

It wouldn't have hurt to add a blurb in Tasha's about it. Kinda like JNA says. They changed Bladesinger to be race agnostic. Druids being metal agnostic isn't a stretch. Now it's up to DM fiat - or not, if it's an AL game. I'm not even sure how a DM is supposed to react if a Druid finds/buys a chain shirt and dons it... Knowing the DMs at my FLGS, some wouldn't bat an eye and others would be adamant about "will not" and just ignore the AC provided. And since it's AL, you could have one or the other DM week to week. Fun!

Maybe learning Druidish instantly gives you a massive delusion you're living on Athas and you don't want heat exhaustion from wearing metal armor... That's totally going to be my next Druid's flaw. Epic!

[KorvinStarmast]

It was more of "The rules are ambiguous when you're trying to figure out where they can break". Yes. People searching for loopholes create unrest where it isn't necessary. Been that way since the first DM monkey pawed the first wish, I suspect...:smallbiggrin:

If you compare this restriction to how monk's armor restriction works, its pretty obviously more ambiguous. fair point.

I also suspect the Nature cleric was meant to be the druid that wears metal armor. But that's just me. If WoTC had any backbone, they'd have binned druid as a class and made nature cleric fit the druid role. Likewise with the INT based Warlock, but here I go again on a pet peeve, so it is time to stop. :smallfrown:

[Theodoxus]

Don't stop on our account, Korvin. I for one love your rants.

Though I think giving Nature Clerics wildshape would have been... problematic. :smallbiggrin: (Though at the base of it, WS as a CD ability could work... though probably only at the base Druid level and mostly for exploration rather than combat... for what that's worth.)

[Kuulvheysoon]

Don't stop on our account, Korvin. I for one love your rants.

Though I think giving Nature Clerics wildshape would have been... problematic. :smallbiggrin: (Though at the base of it, WS as a CD ability could work... though probably only at the base Druid level and mostly for exploration rather than combat... for what that's worth.)

Honestly, I'd have tossed wildshape at the Ranger and made Druid the nature cleric.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, I'd have tossed wildshape at the Ranger and made Druid the nature cleric.

Wildshape is pretty standard for what little we know of historical druid mythology.

[Naanomi]

There is no way you could ditch druid before ranger

[PhantomSoul]

There is no way you could ditch druid before ranger

Hm, but maybe we could ditch them simultaneously... :P

[Naanomi]

Hm, but maybe we could ditch them simultaneously... :P
Fighting Man, Thief, Mage, and *maybe* Cleric right?

[SLOTHRPG95]

Fighting Man, Thief, Mage, and *maybe* Cleric right?

Nah, get rid of the new-fangled Thief, too. Fighting-men are the only martials we need.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I was DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and one of my players ended up with a version of the Sahaugin coral armor after scavenging and taking it to an armorer. In Descent into Avernus our Druid cleaned out the shell of a Hellwasp after a battle and did the same.
So I'll disagree with those on this thread who are arguing that the Druid restriction isn't good. Quite the contrary the restriction has provided some cool moments in campaigns where players have been creative and I've gone with it. If DMs are just going to say no when these opportunities come up then I guess it would be a bit of a downer though.

[strangebloke]

Druid is the least popular class, both according to data I've seen and my own experience. to me it's the obvious chopping block class, though I never support features or classes being removed.


I was DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and one of my players ended up with a version of the Sahaugin coral armor after scavenging and taking it to an armorer. In Descent into Avernus our Druid cleaned out the shell of a Hellwasp after a battle and did the same.
So I'll disagree with those on this thread who are arguing that the Druid restriction isn't good. Quite the contrary the restriction has provided some cool moments in campaigns where players have been creative and I've gone with it. If DMs are just going to say no when these opportunities come up then I guess it would be a bit of a downer though.

I'd be completely fine if they just said "or you lose access to wildshape"

Clear, easy, concise.

[Dork_Forge]

Druid is the least popular class, both according to data I've seen and my own experience. to me it's the obvious chopping block class, though I never support features or classes being removed.


Just as a different data point: Druids are very popular ime, to the point where it may be the most seen class at the table for me outside of the Paladin and Fighter. One of my players that is currently playing a Bard's favourite class is Druid, and I believe he's played all of them within starting 5e about two years ago. In my other ongoing game there's also a Druid (Paladins in both games, go figure).

I can see Druid being something people may avoid due to complexity, Wild Shape is quite a chunky feature to through alongside a prepared ritual caster.

[Theodoxus]

I was DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and one of my players ended up with a version of the Sahaugin coral armor after scavenging and taking it to an armorer. In Descent into Avernus our Druid cleaned out the shell of a Hellwasp after a battle and did the same.
So I'll disagree with those on this thread who are arguing that the Druid restriction isn't good. Quite the contrary the restriction has provided some cool moments in campaigns where players have been creative and I've gone with it. If DMs are just going to say no when these opportunities come up then I guess it would be a bit of a downer though.

Sure, on the other hand, what ruling(s) did you come up with to make that armor? Or did you just handwave it because "cool". Some DMs (especially AL, but even home games) are sticklers to what is offered via RAW. Some might even say if you're not a Lizardfolk, you can't create such items.

On top of that, what creative outlet would your players have alternatively sought out if not having to worry about a traditional Druid restriction? Tradition solely for the sake of tradition is a horrible guideline.

[Hytheter]

I'm really not meaning to be combative, but I interpret it in the same context as vegetarians will not eat meat when I read it.

Vegetarians will eat meat if it's life or death. :smallamused:

[Willie the Duck]

I was DMing Ghosts of Saltmarsh and one of my players ended up with a version of the Sahaugin coral armor after scavenging and taking it to an armorer. In Descent into Avernus our Druid cleaned out the shell of a Hellwasp after a battle and did the same.
So I'll disagree with those on this thread who are arguing that the Druid restriction isn't good. Quite the contrary the restriction has provided some cool moments in campaigns where players have been creative and I've gone with it. If DMs are just going to say no when these opportunities come up then I guess it would be a bit of a downer though.

I'm not sure many people are arguing that the restriction isn't good, so much as that they dislike it because it is some level of convoluted; confusing; highly campaign-specific on how easy it is to work around (and as a corollary a poor class balance mechanic); designed in a way that players and DMs will disagree on whether a given avenue of working around it is acceptable, not-acceptable-but-reasonable, or unreasonable; a singular instance in the rules where PC agency is excised as the enforcement method; and that other similar restrictions on other classes that used to exist have been dealt with in a much more consistent and perhaps pleasing manner (declare what happens if someone does do the thing). I think if the game did the same lose-spells or lose-wildshape or just flat out said that it was strictly a cultural norm amongst druids, this whole tempest in a teapot would not exist.


Vegetarians will eat meat if it's life or death. :smallamused:
Arguably they wouldn't be vegetarians at that moment (they would be people who believe in vegetarianism, forced by circumstance not to practice it at the moment). A druid who puts on metal armor is still a druid, since 'doesn't wear metal armor' doesn't define druidity.

[quindraco]

Druid is the least popular class, both according to data I've seen and my own experience. to me it's the obvious chopping block class, though I never support features or classes being removed.



I'd be completely fine if they just said "or you lose access to wildshape"

Clear, easy, concise.

The only analysis of this I've ever seen was dndbeyond measuring how many builds people had of each class (note that multiclass builds are ignored, polluting the data). Druids were the second least popular, ahead of Artificers. (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/dnd-beyond-popular-single-class.jpg)

For me, the number one reason I avoid Druid is needing to deal with a DM who wants to ban me from the medium armor WOTC has explicitly stated I should be allowed access to, from a balance perspective.

[strangebloke]

The only analysis of this I've ever seen was dndbeyond measuring how many builds people had of each class (note that multiclass builds are ignored, polluting the data). Druids were the second least popular, ahead of Artificers. (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/dnd-beyond-popular-single-class.jpg)

For me, the number one reason I avoid Druid is needing to deal with a DM who wants to ban me from the medium armor WOTC has explicitly stated I should be allowed access to, from a balance perspective.

the only class that scored lower, the artificer, was playtest material at that stage. Technically if you count playtest material the lowest popularity class would be the Mystic. (RIP)

I feel the second part here is sarcastic and while I wouldn't agree this is the main reason, I do think its indicative of the main problem with the class, which is a lack of clear identity. Druids have a tendency to be viewed as "smelly clerics" from what I've seen. They're not weak, they're just not exciting.

[Naanomi]

I wouldn't trust that data to be representative on a larger scale, too many confounding variables... Maybe valuable for marketing, but not good research methodology to generate data with broader utility

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm not sure many people are arguing that the restriction isn't good, so much as that they dislike it because it is some level of convoluted; confusing; highly campaign-specific on how easy it is to work around (and as a corollary a poor class balance mechanic); designed in a way that players and DMs will disagree on whether a given avenue of working around it is acceptable, not-acceptable-but-reasonable, or unreasonable; a singular instance in the rules where PC agency is excised as the enforcement method; and that other similar restrictions on other classes that used to exist have been dealt with in a much more consistent and perhaps pleasing manner (declare what happens if someone does do the thing). I think if the game did the same lose-spells or lose-wildshape or just flat out said that it was strictly a cultural norm amongst druids, this whole tempest in a teapot would not exist.


Arguably they wouldn't be vegetarians at that moment (they would be people who believe in vegetarianism, forced by circumstance not to practice it at the moment). A druid who puts on metal armor is still a druid, since 'doesn't wear metal armor' doesn't define druidity.

I suppose at my table these things have come up through tier 2 and 3 where characters are starting to get magic items, so exotic Druid armor just gets folded into the category of 'goodies that have come along and players are generally OK with the idea that the DM will keep play in balance as necessary.' With the Hellwasp armor in particular it was definitely better than what would have been available RAW, and probably the equivalent of a +2 item, so in my mind that player had his item for those particular levels. It seemed to me then, and still does on reflection, that it was way cooler for the player to have slayed the Hellwasp, returned to an armorer he had met at the Wandering Emporium, and eventually used the hide of this Hellish creature for the rest of his career... than finding a +2 item in a pile of loot.

[nedwasatool]

yup. It's also a classic case of "punish someone by making it annoying." At the end of the day the mechanical impact here is that you're going to get armor made from some kind of exotic material, usually a bug, which honestly probably isn't on-theme at all. Heck, I would pretty strongly argue that armor made from monstrosities and aberrations is much more unnatural than any kind of plate armor.

I think the main reason this rule is in place is to distinguish them from clerics, but if that's the goal I believe the solution would be easier. Take away their proficiencies and handle their AC through spells like is done with wizards. Make Barkskin last for eight hours and not require concentration (it already shouldn't require concentration)

I think the restriction was flavouring for the origin of the druid - Celtic nature priests who organized the resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain.

[Amnestic]

Since druids seem to be fine carrying around thousands of gold+silver coins, all minted in the bowels of civilisation, clearly they need to make their armour out of that instead.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Since druids seem to be fine carrying around thousands of gold+silver coins, all minted in the bowels of civilisation, clearly they need to make their armour out of that instead.

There's a notable difference in holding onto something and using it. I'm fine carrying a box of needles, but ask me to use them? Nooooope I am out of there.

[Sorinth]

There's a notable difference in holding onto something and using it. I'm fine carrying a box of needles, but ask me to use them? Nooooope I am out of there.

But don't druids use the coins they carry around by buying things with them?

[Naanomi]

Since druids seem to be fine carrying around thousands of gold+silver coins, all minted in the bowels of civilisation, clearly they need to make their armour out of that instead.
To be fair, the tech required to make armor is significantly more advanced (and, historically, appeared much later) than that of making coins... or blades for that matter. I suspect that 'primitivism' (defined vaguely as 'pre-greek aesthetic) was at the root of the original druid armor limitations

[Sorinth]

I think the restriction was flavouring for the origin of the druid - Celtic nature priests who organized the resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain.

I'm not aware of any cultural thing that had Celtics Druids refrain from using metal.

It's far more likely that it's a case of associating metal/Steel with industrial production and industrial production being associated with environmental harm. But it falls apart because they also still want Druids to use things the Celts used which include metal.

[Sigreid]

I'm not aware of any cultural thing that had Celtics Druids refrain from using metal.

It's far more likely that it's a case of associating metal/Steel with industrial production and industrial production being associated with environmental harm. But it falls apart because they also still want Druids to use things the Celts used which include metal.

In 1e, what armors you were allowed to wear was a key component in balance. Druids had a lot going for them, so one of their limiting factors was ensuring that they under no circumstances could achieve an AC anywhere near as good as a fighter could achieve.

[strangebloke]

In 1e, what armors you were allowed to wear was a key component in balance. Druids had a lot going for them, so one of their limiting factors was ensuring that they under no circumstances could achieve an AC anywhere near as good as a fighter could achieve.

I would assume the reverse. They didn't want to have them in armor (to achieve what Naaomi called a primitive aesthetic) so they gave them other features to compensate.

Not that I've played 1e

[Sigreid]

I would assume the reverse. They didn't want to have them in armor (to achieve what Naaomi called a primitive aesthetic) so they gave them other features to compensate.

Not that I've played 1e

Possibly. Either way, you didn't get to have all the cool skills and powers and be able to have the best armor. In a lot of ways, other classes got magic, fighters got durability and access to lots of magic items the other classes weren't allowed to use.

[Willie the Duck]

In 1e, what armors you were allowed to wear was a key component in balance. Druids had a lot going for them, so one of their limiting factors was ensuring that they under no circumstances could achieve an AC anywhere near as good as a fighter could achieve.

I would assume the reverse. They didn't want to have them in armor (to achieve what Naaomi called a primitive aesthetic) so they gave them other features to compensate.
Not that I've played 1e

Possibly. Either way, you didn't get to have all the cool skills and powers and be able to have the best armor. In a lot of ways, other classes got magic, fighters got durability and access to lots of magic items the other classes weren't allowed to use.

The design ethos of late oD&D and AD&D leaned decidedly towards 'decide what I/we want this to be, and then balance it by making it really annoying (most often by high ability score requirements to qualify, with whom they could adventure, or what happened at higher levels). That said, the nonmetal armor and many of the minor perks came out at the same time.

Druids first came out (as an opponent) in the Greyhawk supplement of oD&D, with the playable class (which already included the no metal armor rule) rule came out in Eldritch Wizardry. The were basically clerics, excepting that they they couldn't turn undead; could identify pure water/plants/animals; pass through overgrowth (briars, tangles, etc.); Shape change (at 5th level) - regaining 1d6x10% of lost hp and becoming animals (but not revert to druid form when dropped to 0 hp, so becoming a field mouse is risky); not affected by the charm spells of woodland and water creatures; +2 to fire saves; learn druid tongue and (1/level at 4 and above) additional languages of forest creatures; use only daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords (sickle the weapon not yet in the game, this is where the 'druid use scimitars' thing started), spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields; and no potential to gain psionic powers. They were kind of what you describe

Later, with AD&D, druids picked up a bunch of them-only spells which really upped their difference from clerics. That's when they also picked up some of their larger limitations --heavy attribute requirements, and at upper levels they could only gain another level by finding another druid of that level, challenging them to a duel*, and winning that duel**. It pretty much ground advancement to a halt unless the entire party was on board with every Xth adventure being 'Okay, whereas the rest of us just got done requiring training under someone of a higher level, Joe over here now has to not only find such a person, but beat them up. Let's go!' It was... well, it was a different mentality.
*so you as a name-level druid would also be fielding duel demands from other druids
**loser losing half the level-up's xp value