Druid Armor - One Small Fix

[Psyren]

This was a thought I had while reading the "druid with no frontline" thread.

Druid AC... kind of sucks, at least early in your character's career. Despite them having medium armor training like clerics do, it feels largely wasted because all but one of the medium armors are made of metal, and the one that isn't is pretty terrible (you're better off in light armor unless you're hella broke.) But let's assume for a second most people would rather keep the druid metal armor restriction; after all, it's made it through every edition of D&D in one form or another, and both editions of pathfinder, so clearly somebody wants it to stick around (and I'm not saying I don't.)

I had a simple proposal: What if there was a nonmagical, druid-friendly medium armor in the base game, with the same AC as breastplate or half-plate, but not made of metal? Would that be broken to include in core?

The big challenge is figuring out what it would be made of. We've had druid-friendly medium and even heavy armor materials before, but most of the ones I can think of fail one of the three criteria to be core equipment:

I believe to include such an armor in the core list, it would have to pass three tests:

(a) Mundane / nonmagical in origin, + commonly available in most settings

(b) Similar sturdiness to metal (specifically, more than typical leather and hide, ideally as strong as iron or steel)

(c) Flexible enough to be made into armor

Past materials that have been used to make druid-friendly medium or heavy armor usually fail one or more of these. Stone fails (c), Bone fails (b), Wood fails (b) AND (c), Ironwood and Dragonscales and Obsidian are usually too exotic to pass (a), Leather and Hide fail (b), etc.

But then I was thinking - most settings have another source for hide and scales from creatures with a reputation for being much tougher without being as magical as dragons - Dinosaurs! Couldn't sturdy yet mundane armor be made from those? Even if it was as expensive as breastplate or half-plate to represent the difficulty of acquiring and shaping sufficient quantities of it? And even in settings where dinosaurs are very rare or confined to one remote area - well, wouldn't dire {insert animal} work just as well? Their skin, bones and scales are tough too, and they're all over the place, in at least every published setting.

I'm still workshopping the name for this better-than-Hide medium armor, but so far I'm thinking "Cuirass" (both because it's a well-known type of armor, and because the etymology for its name is literally "leather.") Or maybe "Carapace," though that might be a bit too arthropod-focused - though granted, those are creatures that are arguably everywhere too so they'd be a good source for this.

The best part imo is that this gives Barbarians and Rangers a non-metal alternative too. Sure, they don't have a hard restriction the way Druids do, but I could definitely see members of both classes that don't have metal handy.

Suggestions welcome but I think this would give lower-op, low-magic tables an easy goal for their druids to shoot for.

[Atranen]

This is a great idea and something that should be in core. It's not too strong for druids to have, but at the moment it's pretty DM and setting dependent regarding if something like "dragonscale mail" is available. It also lays the player lean into the flavor of druid (and ranger and barb as you mention) and gives druids something to spend their money on. Even if it cost like 1,000 gp and may need a specialist (DM dependent; where plate is now in my experience) it's a great call. Dire animals, dinos, etc. are widespread enough that it's just as plausible in-universe as people having access to plate.

[OvisCaedo]

There could certainly be room for "better" hide armor from tougher animals of one kind or another. Even without getting into things like dinosaurs, there's quite a lot of variety in hides!

Generally, though, I feel like armor being metal is usually a disadvantage, even without druid restrictions? Though there's only a few examples of spells or monster abilities that are stronger against metal, I'm not sure of any that are stronger against non-metal. But since this is generally so niche, it's probably balanced by just making Reinforced Hide or whatever be a bit more expensive.

One thing you should consider is this: would this armor have disadvantage on stealth by default, or no? Breastplate NOT having a stealth penalty seems to make it cost 350 gold more than scale mail (edit: Oh wait the breastplate is also WAY lighter, so that's probably part of the cost)

[Kane0]

Dire Leather and Dire Hide armor, headcanon established.

[da newt]

This is so easy - Tortle's exist, right? Therefore there is a large supply of tortle shells that are pretty much perfect breast plates for all but the biggest of humanoids.

Bulettes - big turtles - chuul - drider - hooked horror - roper - umber hulk - xorn - giant scorpion = these guys all have decent natural armor (better than dinos except Ankylosaurus) and are low-ish CR so a budding druid could go get some nice raw material for a skilled craftsman to work with, or you could go with simple things like scale mail using shells or mica or bits of iron wood or ...

I've always thought it ought to be pretty easy for a druid to have something fashioned to suit their needs.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I was just chatting with my one player who likes playing druids and he said how much he enjoys role playing the search for some critter's hide or exotic armor good enough to make into his own. In Saltmarsh there was coral armor. In Avernus the party killed some Hell Wasps and he paid for a Breastplate to be created.
That said, I don't think the intent is for Druids to be running around in hide indefinitely, so for players whose DMs don't get that, maybe there should be some option in the PH for a few hundred gold that's 1 AC better than hide.
I know there are people who like every mechanic to be stated outright, and the whole Druid Armor situation bugs them. But I'm mostly with my player on this one; I like leaving this somewhat open to interpretation and development of the character within a campaign.

[Psyren]

This is a great idea and something that should be in core. It's not too strong for druids to have, but at the moment it's pretty DM and setting dependent regarding if something like "dragonscale mail" is available. It also lays the player lean into the flavor of druid (and ranger and barb as you mention) and gives druids something to spend their money on. Even if it cost like 1,000 gp and may need a specialist (DM dependent; where plate is now in my experience) it's a great call. Dire animals, dinos, etc. are widespread enough that it's just as plausible in-universe as people having access to plate.

My thought exactly :smallsmile: And hell, dragon scale armor isn't just magical - it's Very Rare, so the druid's chances of getting it in most campaigns is basically nil. And I'm not sure Ironwood or Obsidian have even made it to 5e yet. There just has to be something practical below those.



Generally, though, I feel like armor being metal is usually a disadvantage, even without druid restrictions? Though there's only a few examples of spells or monster abilities that are stronger against metal, I'm not sure of any that are stronger against non-metal. But since this is generally so niche, it's probably balanced by just making Reinforced Hide or whatever be a bit more expensive.

One thing you should consider is this: would this armor have disadvantage on stealth by default, or no? Breastplate NOT having a stealth penalty seems to make it cost 350 gold more than scale mail (edit: Oh wait the breastplate is also WAY lighter, so that's probably part of the cost)

These are both valid points.

On the cost issue, I would definitely say these should be more expensive than their metal equivalents. For starters, it reinforces low AC as the expected/low-op druid "weakness" for longer. While the druid is saving up, they have to rely on wild shape, barkskin, healing/control etc. much like they do now. It also makes current solutions like dipping/multiclassing barbarian or monk, or ancestral solutions like Tortle and Lizardfolk, stay attractive. But above all - in-universe, it just makes narrative sense that for most commoners and artisans, getting their hands on a t-rex hide or dire crocodile scales or a dire beetle carapace is going to be harder for them than a blacksmith buying some iron, to say nothing of the additional training that creating armor out of it might require.

An easy way to handle cost is to bump it up one level. So the "savage scale mail" (14+Dex max 2, disadvantage on stealth) would cost as much as a breastplate, the "savage breastplate" (14+Dex max 2) would cost as much as half-plate, and the "savage half-plate" (15+Dex max 2, disadv on stealth) would cost as much as full plate. Alternatively you can just double the cost of its metal equivalent, though for scale mail that would be pretty affordable still.

Speaking of the stealth issue - for simplicity's sake I would probably keep the disadvantage on stealth (say it's due to bones clinking together or dire scales jangling like metal ones do or something.)

Shields can stay equally effective whether wooden or metal.


This is so easy - Tortle's exist, right? Therefore there is a large supply of tortle shells that are pretty much perfect breast plates for all but the biggest of humanoids.

:smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

Uhhh... eww!

[elyktsorb]

Personally don't think the restriction even needs to exist especially when it's just contradicted by the fact that it's not the armor being metal that has anything to do with anything since they use metal weapons.

[Leon]

If there is going to be a Metal armour restriction ~ actually make it one and not a vapid "you don't wear metal" RP lock.

[Schwann145]

It's cute how D&D is always trying, and failing, to be everything all at once. If these incredibly fantastical and exotic enemies are so common, then why don't we see their resources in shopping lists? Because they're not so common... but if they were that wouldn't fit X game... but also they are common because that fits Y game... except... and on and on.
Breastplate/Half-Plate Armor made from ankhegs or bulettes or Scales made from creature scales instead of forged ones... these don't break anything. The extra couple points of AC when you are still in the teens are not really all that effective for anything other than keeping the scrubs from hitting as often; they won't save your life when it matters.

However, I'd much rather just remove the restriction than dance around it, especially considering it has *never* been explained. "It's just something druids won't do; something-something-not natural. Now here's your metal, forged, scimitar - go out there and shine you druidy druid!"
Makes no sense. We all know it. The AC differences break *nothing.* Just remove it.

[Kane0]

Oh you just reminded me of the Ankheg armor from BG1

[SharkForce]

Well, digging through my old 2nd edition books, most giant beetles are mentioned as something that can be turned into plate armour with an alchemist's help to treat it.

The scales of behirs can be made into particularly beautiful scale armour (which you could assign different stats if you want, I'm sure).

Giant crabs are likewise mentioned as sometimes being hunted to make armour (presumably plate armour of some variety, given that it isn't leather).

There are, of course, more impressive options such as ankhegs as well as gorgons, dragons and dragon turtles, to name a few... but, I find it less plausible for a group of CR 1/4 warriors led by perhaps a CR 1-2 leader to take those down with any degree of safety, and thus less likely to be *relatively* widely available. In contrast, if you have half a dozen people led by a knight or bandit leader equivalent character, I could easily see them taking down giant crabs or giant beetles with relative ease (more people would be required to safely hunt if the beetles live in groups, I guess), and I could even believe they are raised as a sort of livestock, especially if we consider that there are plenty of creatures other than humans that have societies in most settings.

You could also presume that there are similar creatures suitable for a variety of environments.

On a side note... what makes anyone think that in a pre-industrial setting, 25 lbs of good-quality steel is *easy* for someone to get their hands on? Mining is one of the more dangerous jobs out there, and smelting takes a huge amount of work.

Anyways, to my mind... there's not really any reason to say that non-metal versions of existing armour types are impossible to find. Sure, you won't find them just anywhere... but you also won't find a good suit of plate or half-plate just anywhere, so what's the difference? Heck, if we have an organization composed exclusively of relatively powerful individuals (such as druids), I can only imagine that those organizations would go out of their way to keep a few suitable pieces of equipment for their members on hand (to be given as rewards for deeds done, or sold for a sufficient amount of money).

Because really, how many of you out there have been a DM for an extended period of time and *haven't* been asked "can I make armour out of this" after the party have fought something? The people in the worlds of D&D are going to use whatever materials they have available, and if they have the choice between turning a giant crab that they've hunted into meat only, or meat + high quality armour, which option do you think they're going to go with?

I don't see any particular need for special armour entries on the table at all. Just assume that some portion of equipment, including armour, is made with non-standard materials, possibly assign a different rarity for that equipment based on location as you could potentially do for *any* piece of standard equipment, and carry on playing D&D.

This really doesn't need to be a source of any particular drama.

[elyktsorb]

I believe I did a deep dive once upon a time as to why Druids don't wear metal armor and there is no real explanation for it. At best it may have something to do with fae based lore? Which is mostly just speculation on my end.

There is definitely no explanation for why Druids can use metal, everything else as well, or why using metal to protect their bodies is different than using it for weapons or tools. (I think someone tried feeding me the excuse of 'well metal armor is forged and manufactured' because your dagger and scimitar just form fully in the earth and are dug out of dagger and scimitar deposits)

It's also not a defined negative(at most some editions vaguely say it messes with their magic). It's not as if wearing armor stops them from casting spells or using their abilities.

I can only assume it's still a thing to make it stand out more from a cleric. Which I don't get because the whole 'turns into animals' thing is pretty distinct without the ribbon that is 'they don't wear metal armor'

Honestly makes me want to run a druid who got sold some half plate, but was told it 'wasn't made of metal' because as long as they think it's not metal, it's fine.

As for your fix, I mean, it's fine, I just don't think it needs to be a thing, this class doesn't need to have a whole 'thing' to get better armor. If a Wizard can grab a level of Cleric to get Heavy Armor Prof and that's perfectly fine, then I don't see why we even need to dance around the whole 'won't use metal armor' thing. Just let druids buy half plate and then never bring the metal thing up, or just let them have bought a half plate that's made of special material from the regular phb half plate.

[Opsimos]

Spiked Armor is sometimes not made of metal. That gives Druids AC 18 with access to Absorb Elements and Conjure Animals for body blocks. They're fairly durable!

[JackPhoenix]

I believe I did a deep dive once upon a time as to why Druids don't wear metal armor and there is no real explanation for it. At best it may have something to do with fae based lore? Which is mostly just speculation on my end.

There is definitely no explanation for why Druids can use metal, everything else as well, or why using metal to protect their bodies is different than using it for weapons or tools. (I think someone tried feeding me the excuse of 'well metal armor is forged and manufactured' because your dagger and scimitar just form fully in the earth and are dug out of dagger and scimitar deposits)

Well, I guess it's too hard to fathom that surrounding your whole body in 20+ pounds of metal may be somewhat different from holding about 4 pounds of metal in your hand....

[Leon]

Well, I guess it's too hard to fathom that surrounding your whole body in 20+ pounds of metal may be somewhat different from holding about 4 pounds of metal in your hand....

Except that there has been no detail as to why that 20lb's of metal affects a druid (and only a druid)

[elyktsorb]

Well, I guess it's too hard to fathom that surrounding your whole body in 20+ pounds of metal may be somewhat different from holding about 4 pounds of metal in your hand....

You know, I was just thinking it's the amount of metal that really makes a difference. Carrying multiple metal implements that easily weigh more than 20 lbs, that's fine, but wear something metal that weighs 20lbs? Heaven forbid.

[Quietus]

I believe I did a deep dive once upon a time as to why Druids don't wear metal armor and there is no real explanation for it. At best it may have something to do with fae based lore? Which is mostly just speculation on my end.

There is definitely no explanation for why Druids can use metal, everything else as well, or why using metal to protect their bodies is different than using it for weapons or tools. (I think someone tried feeding me the excuse of 'well metal armor is forged and manufactured' because your dagger and scimitar just form fully in the earth and are dug out of dagger and scimitar deposits)

It's also not a defined negative(at most some editions vaguely say it messes with their magic). It's not as if wearing armor stops them from casting spells or using their abilities.

I can only assume it's still a thing to make it stand out more from a cleric. Which I don't get because the whole 'turns into animals' thing is pretty distinct without the ribbon that is 'they don't wear metal armor'

Honestly makes me want to run a druid who got sold some half plate, but was told it 'wasn't made of metal' because as long as they think it's not metal, it's fine.

As for your fix, I mean, it's fine, I just don't think it needs to be a thing, this class doesn't need to have a whole 'thing' to get better armor. If a Wizard can grab a level of Cleric to get Heavy Armor Prof and that's perfectly fine, then I don't see why we even need to dance around the whole 'won't use metal armor' thing. Just let druids buy half plate and then never bring the metal thing up, or just let them have bought a half plate that's made of special material from the regular phb half plate.


Except that there has been no detail as to why that 20lb's of metal affects a druid (and only a druid)

My assumption has always been, it's like a faraday cage for nature magic, along the lines of the fae restrictions. Which makes no sense for elemental magic, of course.

Honestly? Just allow your PCs to make armor out of appropriate monsters. It's tempting to put an additional restriction on it, but I'd make said restrictions strictly RP based. If you want to get a nonstandard material breastplate, just go somewhere that does that, or bring the materials to a person with the right skills. It might have a higher price in a city because of the novelty of it, but that little fishing town on the seaside that has a giant crab problem, probably uses those shells to make basic armor for their guards.

[Willie the Duck]

If there is going to be a Metal armour restriction ~ actually make it one and not a vapid "you don't wear metal" RP lock.
Let's just all preemptively agree that the 5e implementation serves no one well.


I had a simple proposal: What if there was a nonmagical, druid-friendly medium armor in the base game, with the same AC as breastplate or half-plate, but not made of metal? Would that be broken to include in core?
I feel like it couldn't be 'broken' in any reasonable way, simply because plenty of groups ignore it (see above RP lock), tortles exist, etc., and druids under those conditions don't significantly run away with the game moreso than they otherwise would. Honestly, the druids which 'break' things the most are Moon Druids who don't spend much combat time in armor and Shepherd Druids who make sure not to be the primary targets (and my reticence to playing either of these at full tilt being a primary reason for the "druid with no frontline" thread).


Generally, though, I feel like armor being metal is usually a disadvantage, even without druid restrictions? Though there's only a few examples of spells or monster abilities that are stronger against metal, I'm not sure of any that are stronger against non-metal.
There likely aren't, given how little effort was put into keeping the disadvantages for metal. This is one of those legacy things from earlier versions of the games when certain things were more prominent. With fewer spells having been written, Shocking Grasp and Heat Metal (and Warp Wood, as an example of a counter to non-metal) saw more play. Rust monsters were common both as placed encounters and on wandering monster tables. Things like Duskwood or in-book references to non-metal armor beyond padded/leather/hide (studded having reference to metal in previous incarnations) took a long time to show up. BitD, metal/non-metal was a distinction with more teeth (similar to creatures taking little to no damage from bludgeoning or non-bludgeoning, etc.). At this point, there are just enough examples for someone to argue that there is a purpose to the distinction, but honestly just barely. Heat Metal being the primary one, and honestly that spell has enough issues on its' own that I'd hate to use it as a justification for another subsequent rule.


It's cute how D&D is always trying, and failing, to be everything all at once. If these incredibly fantastical and exotic enemies are so common, then why don't we see their resources in shopping lists? Because they're not so common... but if they were that wouldn't fit X game... but also they are common because that fits Y game... except... and on and on.
Huge swaths of the game's frustrating bits stem from it trying to be a generic fantasy system and one with an implied setting/world at the same time (also one where 'how rare is ______?' an open question).


I believe I did a deep dive once upon a time as to why Druids don't wear metal armor and there is no real explanation for it. At best it may have something to do with fae based lore? Which is mostly just speculation on my end.
There's not going to be a solid explanation. They first showed up in Supplement I as a monster (no mention of this restriction), with the closest-to-relevant text being "These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are combination clerics/magic-users." They then show up as PC option in Supplement III with the following:
"Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor. Druids may use those magical items not otherwise proscribed to them which are usable by "all classes" and all those items normally usable by clerics, excluding all clerical items of a written nature (scrolls, books, etc.). "
That's par for the course with the descriptiveness of oD&D. Given the restriction of written magic items, as well as the weapon list leaning towards the 'metal-poor society weapons' side (plus sickle-shaped swords, which seem to be a way to evoke sickles in a game with an equipment list still based on what you'd equip a squad in Chainmail), it suggests to me that Gygax/Blume were envisioning them as the Romans might have thought of them in 50 BCE or the like -- backwoods skirmisher rebels fighting Roman occupation with a serious technology/resource disadvantage (who would have been wearing and using less armor for access reasons, not because they were prohibited, but sometimes enforcement-of-theme doesn't care). The AD&D PHB (1978) certainly suggests it with "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest." However, that book also moves them from creepy wilderness priests unaligned with the forces of law or chaos to nature and animal preserving characters. At that point, moving them wholly to non-metal and making them luddites (or removing this entirely, as having them cut down trees and skin animals instead of carry metal makes no sense) would have been reasonable, but by then the equipment list was ossified.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was just chatting with my one player who likes playing druids and he said how much he enjoys role playing the search for some critter's hide or exotic armor good enough to make into his own. In Saltmarsh there was coral armor. Our Saltmarsh group ended up killing an umber hulk, and later had a breast plate made from that chitin. The druid now wears it. It cost a bit of cash for the dwarves in Salt Marsh (related to the mining concession and employed by Manistrad Copperlocks), to craft that item. (I placed the Umberhulk and a few other monsters in the mine proper. The dwarves asked the party to help them clean the monsters out of the mine ...

Let's just all preemptively agree that the 5e implementation serves no one well. It works fine, but as we have had threads closed over this topic, and I have gotten slammed by the mods on this topic, yeah, let's say folks disagree.

They first showed up in Supplement I as a monster (no mention of this restriction), with the closest-to-relevant text being "These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are combination clerics/magic-users." NPC/Monster was equivalent at that point.

They then show up as PC option in Supplement III with the following: And they took out "70% of the time leading barbaric followers" from Greyhawk.

That's par for the course with the descriptiveness of oD&D.
... it suggests to me that Gygax/Blume were envisioning them as the Romans might have thought of them in 50 BCE or the like -- backwoods skirmisher rebels fighting Roman occupation with a serious technology/resource disadvantage (who would have been wearing and using less armor for access reasons, not because they were prohibited, but sometimes enforcement-of-theme doesn't care.
I refer to something EGG said about that here. ([URL="https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566") FWIW, mention goes to Gygax, Blume and Dennis Sustare who was the originator of the OD&D Druid.
Supplement III
ELDRITCH WIZARDRY
ANCIENT AND POWERFUL MAGIC
BY
GARY GYGAX & BRIAN BLUME
With Special Thanks to Elder Steve Marsh, Dennis Sustare (the Great Druid), Jim Ward & Tim Kask for Suggestions and Contributions!

The AD&D PHB (1978) certainly suggests it with "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest." However, that book also moves them from creepy wilderness priests unaligned with the forces of law or chaos to nature and animal preserving characters. Some of that was mentioned in EW, but yeah, the AD&D version had its own changes.

They didn't feel the need to explain the why of 'you don't wear metal armor' and honestly, we didn't need a why to play the class and enjoy it.

[Psyren]

Personally don't think the restriction even needs to exist especially when it's just contradicted by the fact that it's not the armor being metal that has anything to do with anything since they use metal weapons.


If there is going to be a Metal armour restriction ~ actually make it one and not a vapid "you don't wear metal" RP lock.


It's cute how D&D is always trying, and failing, to be everything all at once. If these incredibly fantastical and exotic enemies are so common, then why don't we see their resources in shopping lists? Because they're not so common... but if they were that wouldn't fit X game... but also they are common because that fits Y game... except... and on and on.
Breastplate/Half-Plate Armor made from ankhegs or bulettes or Scales made from creature scales instead of forged ones... these don't break anything. The extra couple points of AC when you are still in the teens are not really all that effective for anything other than keeping the scrubs from hitting as often; they won't save your life when it matters.

However, I'd much rather just remove the restriction than dance around it, especially considering it has *never* been explained. "It's just something druids won't do; something-something-not natural. Now here's your metal, forged, scimitar - go out there and shine you druidy druid!"
Makes no sense. We all know it. The AC differences break *nothing.* Just remove it.

I agree that the metal restriction feels silly without any mechanical impact - even Sage Advice responds to the obvious question with a joke. Having said that, I reiterate that I don't think the restriction would be as enduring as it has been if it didn't resonate with people, perhaps even most people.

I can also see some degree of balance justification for it as druids are... kind of the whole package right off the bat (their features give them competitive blasting, healing, frontline, control, and utility all in T1) and so letting them run around in scale mail on top of all that could be overshadowing to an extent.

Regarding monstrosities - I don't know that we can necessarily assume things like Ankhegs and Bulettes are sufficiently common to make core materials out of, but giant/dire animals and dinosaurs should be fair game in most settings. Xanathar's for instance quite plainly states that "if you grew up in {biome}, you've seen X" in its Beast Shapes tables, and that implies a degree of commonality.



On a side note... what makes anyone think that in a pre-industrial setting, 25 lbs of good-quality steel is *easy* for someone to get their hands on? Mining is one of the more dangerous jobs out there, and smelting takes a huge amount of work.

To be totally clear, I don't think steel is "easy" to obtain or work - and the price of metal armor reflects that. Most commoners can't even afford a chain shirt or ring mail, much less the more involved creations. And I'm proposing that these "savage armors" or "cuirasses" would be even pricier than those.



I don't see any particular need for special armour entries on the table at all. Just assume that some portion of equipment, including armour, is made with non-standard materials, possibly assign a different rarity for that equipment based on location as you could potentially do for *any* piece of standard equipment, and carry on playing D&D.

This really doesn't need to be a source of any particular drama.

There are quite a number of DMs out there that say "if it's not on the table you can't buy it." And it's not like they're wrong or being extreme. (Also, AL exists.) So while it's true that such an entry isn't strictly necessary I can see it being beneficial.

[Willie the Duck]

I can also see some degree of balance justification for it as druids are... kind of the whole package right off the bat (their features give them competitive blasting, healing, frontline, control, and utility all in T1) and so letting them run around in scale mail on top of all that could be overshadowing to an extent.

If the argument is 'druids are powerful, so they need a compensatory limitation,' I can wholly get behind it*. I just don't feel that it really works -- in no small part because the most powerful uses of druids are ones which suffer the least from this, while a front-lining spore druid (or just any old druid pairing close-combat spells and swinging their scimitars) are some of the least powerful implementations.
*although in that case I'm rather annoyed by the ease at which wizards can circumvent their similar limitations, how swingy the burden is based on how challenging the DM makes finding non-metal armor is, and how you can obviate most of it unless the DM or your RP choices exclude tortles/lizardfolk/etc


To be totally clear, I don't think steel is "easy" to obtain or work - and the price of metal armor reflects that. Most commoners can't even afford a chain shirt or ring mail, much less the more involved creations. And I'm proposing that these "savage armors" or "cuirasses" would be even pricier than those.
The D&D economy being gibberish aside, it's also easy to forget that non-metal things were also expensive in the times D&D is vaguely trying to emulate. I think there's a natural tendency to treat metal as more innately expensive because there's a finite amount you can make from so much ore and only so much ore in a mine's veins. Maybe also because it has a sense of permanence, as it doesn't rot and we still find medieval metal today (although, to be fair, we find a lot of 'rust in the shape of _____' items as well). However, both mining (/refining, smithing) and growing/cutting/crafting wood and cloth and animal hide represent labor, and that's the dominant expense most of the time. The expensive part of an arrow was the shaft and fletching, as arrowheads became one of the first mass-produced metal products. Gambesons (padded armor) would have been made out of massively multiple layers of linen - a flax-based plant-fiber textile that was hugely labor intensive*. Hide armor was a precious animal hide, which hade a wealth of other uses it could be put to if not placed around someone's body for protection. Metal was expensive, but so was everything else. I can absolutely believe that the effort to make 'something roughly as protective as metal, but not being metal' would be more expensive.
*and not subject to many labor-saving innovations that happened during this time, such as the spinning wheel with regards to wool

[KorvinStarmast]

Druid Armor - One Small Fix
I will suggest not overthinking this. Remove the concentration requirement from Barkskin. Fixed.

[Psyren]

If the argument is 'druids are powerful, so they need a compensatory limitation,' I can wholly get behind it*. I just don't feel that it really works -- in no small part because the most powerful uses of druids are ones which suffer the least from this, while a front-lining spore druid (or just any old druid pairing close-combat spells and swinging their scimitars) are some of the least powerful implementations.
*although in that case I'm rather annoyed by the ease at which wizards can circumvent their similar limitations, how swingy the burden is based on how challenging the DM makes finding non-metal armor is, and how you can obviate most of it unless the DM or your RP choices exclude tortles/lizardfolk/etc

I agree that melee isn't the strongest thing they could be doing, but it's not like there's much of a tradeoff either. When even a druid that has no intention of frontlining longterm can simply slap on some scale mail, grab a club and shield, cast a cantrip and be on par with the fighter or paladin for all of T1 while still having every other resource available, I can understand why such a drawback may have persisted.

And yes, a wizard or bard or warlock can optimize their way to similar tankiness, but for them it usually involves more specific/costly build resources than just their starting gear.


Metal was expensive, but so was everything else. I can absolutely believe that the effort to make 'something roughly as protective as metal, but not being metal' would be more expensive.

Exactly - especially when the thing being hunted for "hide+" can much more easily hunt back, nor can it be domesticated etc.


I will suggest not overthinking this. Remove the concentration requirement from Barkskin. Fixed.

Putting aside that requiring every druid to pick the same spell isn't particularly elegant either (similar to Hunter's Mark or Eldritch Blast, it should just be a class feature at that point) - Barkskin by all accounts is not going to have anything to do with AC in 1DnD. I'm thinking ahead to that edition as the equipment chapter for 5e is unlikely to change further.

[Telok]

I always liked loading my druids down with 20 pounds of gold jewelry (open pit mined & acid leached ore extraction if possible), steel chain bandoliers of 30 daggers across the chest, and a big ugly silver (sourced from lead ore of less than 0.1% silver if possible) belt buckle to hold the pants up. It doesn't count if it isn't armor.

[Luccan]

Druids had a spell in 3rd edition called Ironwood. They cast it only a set of wood equipment and it became like iron in term of toughness and fire resistance. Druids could wear ironwood armor without penalty. I'd just reintroduce the substance or even the spell. Druids sell ironwood to other druids and rangers, but keep the location of ironwood groves a secret (since it also has most of the beneficial properties of wood, like weighing less than metal) to prevent over harvesting

[JackPhoenix]

Except that there has been no detail as to why that 20lb's of metal affects a druid (and only a druid)

It doesn't affect them, at least not in 5e. They choose not to wear it. Obligatory "But what if my druid decide to wear it" question: Then he's not a druid, just like a vegan who decide to eat meat isn't a vegan.

[Sorinth]

I'd be on board and would probably take it a step further and make Hide Armor a special armor type with a variable AC/Cost and provide a formula for converting a monster's natural AC into an AC value and cost for the Hide armor. So whether it's from a Dragon, an Ankheg, a Dire Wolf, etc... you have the possibility to make or get someone to make you armor from that creature. The common creatures like Bears would have Hide armor readily available, whereas more dangerous/exotic creatures you might have to acquire the hide(s) yourself.

[JNAProductions]

It doesn't affect them, at least not in 5e. They choose not to wear it. Obligatory "But what if my druid decide to wear it" question: Then he's not a druid, just like a vegan who decide to eat meat isn't a vegan.

So... Do they lose access to spells?
Wild Shape?
Can they continue leveling up and gaining features?

[Leon]

My assumption has always been, it's like a faraday cage for nature magic, along the lines of the fae restrictions. Which makes no sense for elemental magic, of course.

And then you have the Nature cleric who has some of the same magic and can wander about in a Steel Can and cast it

[JackPhoenix]

So... Do they lose access to spells?
Wild Shape?
Can they continue leveling up and gaining features?

Druids will not wear armor made of metal. Therefore, if you wear armor made of metal, you are not a druid. If you aren't a druid, nothing listed in the druid's entry in the class chapter applies to you.

What color should this post use is a matter of opinion.

[JNAProductions]

Druids will not wear armor made of metal. Therefore, if you wear armor made of metal, you are not a druid. If you aren't a druid, nothing listed in the druid's entry in the class chapter applies to you.

What color should this post use is a matter of opinion.

What would you do, as a DM, if a Druid player has their PC don Half-Plate made of metal?
Related, what if they thought it wasn’t metal?

[Schwann145]

It doesn't affect them, at least not in 5e. They choose not to wear it. Obligatory "But what if my druid decide to wear it" question: Then he's not a druid, just like a vegan who decide to eat meat isn't a vegan.

There is zero mechanical consideration, according to the class itself. This is not like a Paladin breaking their oath. There are zero drawbacks or repercussions for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor. The only mention of metal armor, in fact, is a throwaway parenthetical flavor line. If a table decides to ignore that bit of suggested flavor, nothing changes at all about the class.

[sambojin]

You could just put a note at the bottom of the armour listings.

"Scale armour, breastplates and half plate can be made of exotic material such as bone, chitin or particularly tough scales. Armour made from these materials costs an extra 250gp to represent the difficulty of their construction and acquiring these naterials. Several groups wear this style of armour as a form of prestige item, or due to their cultural outlooks, or the availability of materials to produce armour from in a particular area."

Sure, it's more expensive, but it's there for everyone in all campaign types. Leaves heavy armour users as pretty special (no surcharge for their armour), but lets you have cool dragon knights, spider priestesses and all that, as well as armoured druids. +250gp isn't heaps, but it's not nothing either.

[Psyren]

Druids will not wear armor made of metal. Therefore, if you wear armor made of metal, you are not a druid. If you aren't a druid, nothing listed in the druid's entry in the class chapter applies to you.

What color should this post use is a matter of opinion.


What would you do, as a DM, if a Druid player has their PC don Half-Plate made of metal?
Related, what if they thought it wasn’t metal?


There is zero mechanical consideration, according to the class itself. This is not like a Paladin breaking their oath. There are zero drawbacks or repercussions for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor. The only mention of metal armor, in fact, is a throwaway parenthetical flavor line. If a table decides to ignore that bit of suggested flavor, nothing changes at all about the class.

If y'all want to argue over whether the metal armor proscription should exist in the first place, this isn't really the thread for that. For 5e at least, the line exists, and I don't see errata removing it anytime soon, so it's up to each individual table to decide whether to follow that line or not. Neither the tables that enforce it nor the ones that ignore it are wrong as long as both their players and their DMs are having fun.


You could just put a note at the bottom of the armour listings.

"Scale armour, breastplates and half plate can be made of exotic material such as bone, chitin or particularly tough scales. Armour made from these materials costs an extra 250gp to represent the difficulty of their construction and acquiring these naterials. Several groups wear this style of armour as a form of prestige item, or due to their cultural outlooks, or the availability of materials to produce armour from in a particular area."

Sure, it's more expensive, but it's there for everyone in all campaign types. Leaves heavy armour users as pretty special (no surcharge for their armour), but lets you have cool dragon knights, spider priestesses and all that, as well as armoured druids. +250gp isn't heaps, but it's not nothing either.

I love this idea, and +250 is a reasonable premium.

[SharkForce]

If nature clerics are walking around with full suits of plate armour, I view that as a problem with the design of nature clerics, not a problem with druids.

Nothing about the concept of nature cleric suggests to me "full plate armour".

Then again, I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with some of the limitations in 5e that make me look back fondly on parts of 2nd edition (and yes, I do remember annoying fiddly bits too, like thieves that are terrible at being thieves for the first several levels, dart-throwing specialist fighters with exceptional strength, THAC0 being kinda annoying to calculate, vancian spellcasting, etc... in fact, I still regularly play a modified 2nd edition game with a group of friends).

clerics are all generally too same-y for me... spheres may have been kinda fiddly, but it makes a lot more sense than your priest of murder being just as good at healing as most other priests (less good than an actual priest of healing, I guess, so that's something). Likewise I'm not a huge fan of priests that can pretty much tell their god to go suck an egg (or warlocks that can tell their patron the same, although that's not because of 2nd ed since warlocks didn't exist at the time).

But again... I've never viewed non-metal armour as being a huge mechanical restriction for druids. It was just a flavour thing that they had to put in a bit more effort than other classes to get better armour, but it wasn't exactly a huge deal in any of the games I've been in.

I could certainly accept that in a certain setting, druids wear metal armour and nobody cares... but I do prefer to have more distinctions, not fewer, between classes.

[Kane0]

Or just have Nature Clerics not be separate from Druids in the first place. Have the heavy armor druid as a subclass option (and while we're at it, heavy armor barbarian and armored monk subclasses).

[Psyren]

Nature is definitely a cleric domain I'm willing to give up in the new PHB. They're going to be cutting down the core domains to 4 anyway, and Land Druid and Ancients Paladin fill the nature caster and nature frontliner niches just fine. So long as they follow a suggestion like the one in this thread and implement druid medium armor that doesn't suck, I doubt we'll miss it.

[JackPhoenix]

What would you do, as a DM, if a Druid player has their PC don Half-Plate made of metal?

Talk to them. You know, the thing reasonable adults do where there are some mismatched expectations or other differences.


Related, what if they thought it wasn’t metal?

Why would they do that?


There is zero mechanical consideration, according to the class itself. This is not like a Paladin breaking their oath. There are zero drawbacks or repercussions for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor. The only mention of metal armor, in fact, is a throwaway parenthetical flavor line. If a table decides to ignore that bit of suggested flavor, nothing changes at all about the class.

Playing a druid requires certain roleplaying considerations, just like playing a cleric, paladin, sorcerer, warlock or a wizard. If a table decides to ignore that, that's their problem, not mine.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids will not wear armor made of metal. Therefore, if you wear armor made of metal, you are not a druid. If you aren't a druid, nothing listed in the druid's entry in the class chapter applies to you.
What color should this post use is a matter of opinion.
And that solves the problem without a lot of mental gymnastics.

What would you do, as a DM, if a Druid player has their PC don Half-Plate made of metal?
Related, what if they thought it wasn’t metal? Until they take it off, their Druid class features no longer work.

You could just put a note at the bottom of the armour listings.

"Scale armour, breastplates and half plate can be made of exotic material such as bone, chitin or particularly tough scales. Armour made from these materials costs an extra 250gp to represent the difficulty of their construction and acquiring these naterials. Several groups wear this style of armour as a form of prestige item, or due to their cultural outlooks, or the availability of materials to produce armour from in a particular area." *Golf Clap*

I love this idea, and +250 is a reasonable premium. What we did was use the rules already in place: DMG and Xanathars. Crafting such a suit of armor from Umber Hulk Chittin. (Dragonscale armor brings magical resistance and is magic, so was not an option). But it was a bit pricier than 250 GP.

Or just have Nature Clerics not be separate from Druids in the first place. Have the heavy armor druid as a subclass option (and while we're at it, heavy armor barbarian and armored monk subclasses). I'd recommend dumping nature clerics completely, for two reasons.
1. The heavy armor is a blatant contradiction thematically.
2. The Druid class already covers those bases, and more.

[OvisCaedo]

Playing a druid requires certain roleplaying considerations, just like playing a cleric, paladin, sorcerer, warlock or a wizard. If a table decides to ignore that, that's their problem, not mine.

Can you give some examples of roleplaying restrictions you think other classes face that are similar? Cases of "you can not do X" that don't have any apparent mechanical reasoning or detailed effect, or even explained thematic reasons? That tends to be one of the real sticking points; no reasoning whatsoever is given. "Being covered in worked metals disrupts the flow of nature magic used for their abilities" would be a good one! But the book doesn't say that anywhere, so I suppose it's not the case!

Which leaves us with... every druid character has to come up with a reason for why they are apparently mechanically required to just not WANT to wear metal armor, no matter what they're like, where they came from, what they value, etc.. To me, that just kind of sounds like bad rules writing! Every single member of this class MUST have this personality trait, for absolutely no elaborated on reason. If the writers want to keep the absolute restriction, they should probably try to include even a flimsy justification for it in the text. I wonder if they will for DnDone?

[Psyren]

Since we're determined to discuss this...


Talk to them. You know, the thing reasonable adults do where there are some mismatched expectations or other differences.

This.


Can you give some examples of roleplaying restrictions you think other classes face that are similar? Cases of "you can not do X" that don't have any apparent mechanical reasoning or detailed effect, or even explained thematic reasons? That tends to be one of the real sticking points; no reasoning whatsoever is given. "Being covered in worked metals disrupts the flow of nature magic used for their abilities" would be a good one! But the book doesn't say that anywhere, so I suppose it's not the case!

Just because the book doesn't spell out a justification doesn't mean there isn't one. Or conversely, that one is even needed. It's magic, it doesn't have to be logical.


Which leaves us with... every druid character has to come up with a reason for why they are apparently mechanically required to just not WANT to wear metal armor, no matter what they're like, where they came from, what they value, etc.. To me, that just kind of sounds like bad rules writing! Every single member of this class MUST have this personality trait, for absolutely no elaborated on reason. If the writers want to keep the absolute restriction, they should probably try to include even a flimsy justification for it in the text. I wonder if they will for DnDone?

We'll know when we get to that playtest.



What we did was use the rules already in place: DMG and Xanathars. Crafting such a suit of armor from Umber Hulk Chittin. (Dragonscale armor brings magical resistance and is magic, so was not an option). But it was a bit pricier than 250 GP.

Could you point me to those rules? My search of Xanathar's came up empty.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd really hoped we wouldn't have to relitigate this, but let's keep going with the 'not sure if s/b blue text' analysis.


It doesn't affect them, at least not in 5e. They choose not to wear it. Obligatory "But what if my druid decide to wear it" question: Then he's not a druid, just like a vegan who decide to eat meat isn't a vegan.

Druids will not wear armor made of metal. Therefore, if you wear armor made of metal, you are not a druid. If you aren't a druid, nothing listed in the druid's entry in the class chapter applies to you.

What color should this post use is a matter of opinion.

Using the former vegan example as an analog, the later doesn't necessarily follow. A vegan who eats meat isn't not a vegan, they are a vegan who has fallen down or lapsed in their pursuit of veganism (something that apparently happens to a large majority of aspirant vegans). What that means to any downstream benefits (esteem in the eyes of their fellow vegans, membership in or committee postings within vegan organizations, or of course vegan powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pilgrim_vs._the_World)) is entirely dependent on the nature of whatever governing body (if any) enforces any of this.

[Luccan]

There is zero mechanical consideration, according to the class itself. This is not like a Paladin breaking their oath. There are zero drawbacks or repercussions for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor. The only mention of metal armor, in fact, is a throwaway parenthetical flavor line. If a table decides to ignore that bit of suggested flavor, nothing changes at all about the class.

Do Paladins actually have consequences for breaking their oath in 5e? I know it's implied, because the oaths exist and because of the Oathbreaker, but does it actually say anywhere there should be mechanical impact for breaking your oath?

[Telok]

Using the former vegan example as an analog, the later doesn't necessarily follow. A vegan who eats meat isn't not a vegan, they are a vegan who has fallen down or lapsed in their pursuit of veganism (something that apparently happens to a large majority of aspirant vegans). What that means to any downstream benefits (esteem in the eyes of their fellow vegans, membership in or committee postings within vegan organizations, or of course vegan powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pilgrim_vs._the_World)) is entirely dependent on the nature of whatever governing body (if any) enforces any of this.

There's also "what counts as meat" and "did they knowingly/willingly eat it". For druids is carrying around a big metal barrel from the inside and claiming 3/4 cover (or playing stand/crouch for full cover when its not their turn) against everything "armor"? Does shoving a metal buckler into their hand or slapping a metal helm on them count as "wearing armor"? Is it any worn or weilded metal object that grants AC? Can you make a chain mail blanket with a hole in the middle and poncho it over their head during a grapple to un-druid them mid combat? What if we illusion up some metal armor and trick them into wearing it? Can we do that with a metal shield? What happens if we un-druid them during wildshape?

You can get a lot of mileage out of a vague one liner fluff text with no rules or explanation attached to it.

[Willie the Duck]

There's also "what counts as meat" and "did they knowingly/willingly eat it". For druids is carrying around a big metal barrel from the inside and claiming 3/4 cover (or playing stand/crouch for full cover when its not their turn) against everything "armor"? Does shoving a metal buckler into their hand or slapping a metal helm on them count as "wearing armor"? Is it any worn or weilded metal object that grants AC? Can you make a chain mail blanket with a hole in the middle and poncho it over their head during a grapple to un-druid them mid combat? What if we illusion up some metal armor and trick them into wearing it? Can we do that with a metal shield? What happens if we un-druid them during wildshape?

You can get a lot of mileage out of a vague one liner fluff text with no rules or explanation attached to it.

I'm at peace with metal armor being things listed on the equipment table as armor, and even with 'wearing' it as in equipping it in such a way as to gain its' AC bonus as D&D-equipment-rule armor (if druids want to wear a plate cuirass on their head as part of a hazing ritual, that sounds fine and dandy to me). I'm also fine that 'fluff text' isn't a distinction 5e makes. Also that if something is printed in the rulebook, it is, by all accounts, a rule-just as much as any other in the game (even without any given consequences for it being broken, that just shows how much the game is not set up for RAW-level navel-gazing). All I am saying is that the above is trying to declare consequential reasoning when none was actually provided (and thus is not supported). Instead, what was provided was a (so far as I can tell) unique instance of authorial override of player-to-character decision authority -- the druid simply will choose not to do so, no consequences necessary. There's no particular reason that consequences are required (there is no rule on what happens if a magic user tries to use a weapon other than a dagger in oD&D), nor that rules can't dictate the action of a PC (IIRC the Dallas RPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_(role-playing_game)) is about 90% such rules). It's just an outlier in the existing game that sticks out like a sore thumb and invites endless arguments.

[OvisCaedo]

Just because the book doesn't spell out a justification doesn't mean there isn't one. Or conversely, that one is even needed. It's magic, it doesn't have to be logical.

I agree that magic does not need to be logical or justified much! But I also don't see any mention or even implication of magic in that line of armor proficiency. "because magic" would indeed be a valid reason, but the rules should probably actually say so. I'm not really trying to claim the armor restriction should go away, even, just that the current writing is severely lacking, and that it would take extremely little for the writers to fill that hole themselves. Just say it messes with magic, done. But if they don't say anything even as minimal as that, it's just kind of the book dictating a character's choices beyond the player's control.

extremely tangentially, I was looking at some other features with armor restrictions, and noticed that barbarians actually CAN rage in heavy armor. They just get zero of the baseline benefits. But subclass rage-based benefits don't seem to bring heavy armor up themselves, so I guess many of them could still be usable in heavy armor...? Don't think it would ever be a good idea to build around, with how important the base rage benefits are, though.

[Sorinth]

Personally I don't think there should be an armour restriction, but if that's the class fantasy that they want to push then I think I prefer the vagueness of Druid to the Monk and armour situation.

My preference would be to have an ability that makes druids want to wear non-metal armour. Suppose when wearing non-metal armor and not in wildshape they can use their Wis instead of Dex for calculating their AC? That will push most towards non-metal armour.

[sambojin]

I don't disagree, but it makes a fairly stat independent class even more-so. Having 19-20AC with a shield by lvl4-8 wouldn't be uncommon.

That wouldn't be a bad thing, and it would save the Monk dip for everyone but Moon's, but I like the "slap a surcharge" on it fix myself. Makes it simple, and druids often don't have that much to spend their gold on anyway, so going from AC12+2+dex to AC14/15+2+dex(max2) is a nice work around. Stealth or not, +AC with less stealth, you can decide, for a price. At 300/650/1000gp for the privilege, it makes it feel like there's some character progression in stats going on, even though it costs a bit.

(Actually, druids do have heaps to spend their money on. It's literally everything that isn't armour or a weapon. But giving them the option to feels fine as well. It's only about the cost of a few potions or a decent bribe or half an uncommon magic item as the surcharge, which is still quite a bit at lvl3-6, but it's certainly worth the upgrade unless you're very dexxy)

((It also stealths in "masterwork" armour. Exotic material can mean anything. So the king's personal bodyguard gets cool gubbins, even if it doesn't have any mechanical impact other than looking flashy in the society they're in. Probably just add "or has impressive adornments" after the bone/ chitin bit in my fix above. Hell, do it for all armour types. +250gp, can be made from most things, or looks expensive or well-made, like it was master crafted or something....))

[Psyren]

Personally I don't think there should be an armour restriction, but if that's the class fantasy that they want to push then I think I prefer the vagueness of Druid to the Monk and armour situation.

My preference would be to have an ability that makes druids want to wear non-metal armour. Suppose when wearing non-metal armor and not in wildshape they can use their Wis instead of Dex for calculating their AC? That will push most towards non-metal armour.

You'd end up with a lot of 10 Dex druids in light armor that way :smalltongue: I don't think making one of the most powerful classes in the game even more SAD is the best idea.

[da newt]

When druids wildshape they absorb and incorporate any armor worn - this is why it has to be made of an animal based substance and cannot be metal.


(this is just one possible explanation for those of you who would like to have one)

[Sorinth]

My idea was more for illustrative purposes then an actual houserule suggestion. The point is more to do something so that they will voluntarily choose the fantasy you want to present by using the carrot not the stick.

[Psyren]

My idea was more for illustrative purposes then an actual houserule suggestion. The point is more to do something so that they will voluntarily choose the fantasy you want to present by using the carrot not the stick.

I get what you were going for, sure - the issue is that as currently designed, giving the class yet more carrots could upset the apple cart.

...I suppose produce metaphors aren't the worst way to discuss a nature class :smallbiggrin:


When druids wildshape they absorb and incorporate any armor worn - this is why it has to be made of an animal based substance and cannot be metal.


(this is just one possible explanation for those of you who would like to have one)

I don't mind but the trouble here is that, post-Tasha's, no druid ever has to wildshape if they don't want to. So I think it's more far-reaching.

[elyktsorb]

When druids wildshape they absorb and incorporate any armor worn - this is why it has to be made of an animal based substance and cannot be metal.


(this is just one possible explanation for those of you who would like to have one)

Happy to suck up all my metal, currency, weapons, and tools tho.

[Schwann145]

Keep in mind, there are many many different Druid Circles and Enclaves and groups in every different campaign setting, and the company is actually saying, "every single one of them, no matter how different or diverse, all agree on refusing to wear metal armor... and we can't even be bothered to come up with even a throw-away reason why."

It doesn't pass the smell test.

[Psyren]

Keep in mind, there are many many different Druid Circles and Enclaves and groups in every different campaign setting, and the company is actually saying, "every single one of them, no matter how different or diverse, all agree on refusing to wear metal armor... and we can't even be bothered to come up with even a throw-away reason why."

It doesn't pass the smell test.

But no matter how divergent those Circles and Enclaves are, they have things in common (i.e. base class features like spellcasting and wild shape, and the optional class features too) or they wouldn't be druids. To get away from that would require getting away from classes entirely.

[Sigreid]

Personally, I think the game could do with more definition around religion in general. Even if it were tied more to campaigns than core classes. I.e. the church of x God does not y by divine decree.

[Luccan]

I think the idea within the fiction regarding metal armor and Druids is that at a certain point large scale mining is going to be very damaging to the environment. Reliably crafting entirely metal arms and armor requires a certain level of cultural specialization that's probably going to result in these large mining operations. So, Druids don't deal in certain metal goods. I think this made more sense when there were also weapon restrictions involved, when the only metal weapons a Druid could use were items that were essentially part of their faith. But a lot of those weapons also completely suck in 5e, so I can see why the change was made. The majority of druids in this edition don't use weapons anyway