Land Druid and it's AC problems

[FinnS]

How many snowflakes are in this thread?

1; I want my Druid to wear metal armour.
2; No, you cannot.
1; Why?
2; The rules say so.
1; where?
2; here... "druids will not wear armour"
1; so the homogenous druid will have it arbitrarily decided despite it not fitting backstory
2; sure, you can houserule it if you wish
1; but is it houseruling if you're being told what your character thinks and behaves? No other class has RP limitations built into their character features? Or even why in general are there RP limitations on mechanic bags? Why are you so insistent on olaying a Druid, rather than a character whose abilities are best represented by the Druid class? Is Gandalf a Paladin? Course he is, look at his abilities. Is he a wizard? God no. In setting yes, mechanics wise? Nope.
2; fine have it your way, but lets be honest you're NOT really playing D&D if you houserule, you might as well play Munchkin or some game that's not D&D because Druids MUST NOT WEAR Metal Armour, but can wear metal jewellery, use metal weaponry, use pickaxes and other spells to move earth to get to seams of ore which they can then manipulate into suits of armour as a blacksmith and literally bath in the gold they earn while adventuring but no, they cannot wear metal armour because I must follow the rules OBEY the master rulesmiths for they are all knowing and perfect.

didn't realise that gatekeeping was overflowing again.

Nice try but you missed a step again (on purpose I might add) and that conversation goes more like this...

1; I want my Druid to wear metal armor.
2; Sorry they won't.
1; Why?
2; Because you, the player, knew the restriction on metal armor before you even chose to be a Druid. If your character was so adamant about being able to wear metal armor then it's a good bet that that character would not have set out in life to become a Druid in the first place. It's much, much more likely that said character would have instead taken the path of the Nature Cleric emulating the ideals of Druids and Nature without the Druidic restrictions.

That sir, would be the end of said conversation.
There still is no spoon, sorry.

[Chaosmancer]

Because the rule says that Druids will not wear metal armour. That's a definitive statement. Just like if you ask someone out on a date and they say that they will not go out with you. That's not strictly the same as "can not", but it's effectively the same outcome, unless compliance is induced through force. For example, I don't drink alcohol, if you offered me Beer, I'd turn it down. If you tricked me into drinking beer, I'd be very angry. If you forced me to drink beer, that would be a criminal act. Does that mean I cannot drink beer? No, but the outcome is the same.



It doesn't say that. Each Paladin oath has a code they must follow. None of them say "you must give Gold to the poor". The Devotion Tenet "Compassion" is the closest it gets, but even then "Aid others and protect the weak" can be achieved through non-monetary assistance. Unless you're actively refusing to feed starving orphans, you're probably not failing to protect the weak.



That's generally what rules are meant to do, yes. Give everyone a framework to operate within.



No, the argument boils down to some people strongly disliking a certain rule, which is fine. Not wanting to enforce that rule in their game, which is fine. And then trying to pretend it's not actually in the rules, and that anyone who uses the rule is a bad DM, which is not fine.



No, the DM has the majority of input on that, the player can argue for a certain house rule, but the DM is the final arbitrator. If the player doesn't like a certain rule and the DM wants to enforce it, the player has two options. Like it, or leave.

If a player comes to me and says "okay, I'm a cleric, but I'm an Atheist cleric" and I say, "well actually those don't exist in my campaign setting, or even in the rulebook" and their reaction is "STOP OPPRESSING MY PLAYER AGENCY", I'm probably not inviting that guy back after session 1.

Away from my books, but actually a cleric who doesn't worship a god is in the phb. You can worship the idea or the domain, per raw in the book. Secondly, "does not worship a god" does not equal atheist. Atheism is refusing to believe the gods exist.

I'm not saying DMs who enforce the no metal armor rule are bad dms, however, some of the people defending that stance are also using relatively harsh language. And it is strange to me, it begins to sound like even the idea of the homebrew (and some people make that sound like a dirty word) is offensive to them.

Wearing metal armor is homebrew, offering alternative medium armor materials is homebrew I agree with that, but the rule being enforced is a limit on the decisions you can make in character. It is telling you what your character believes. The player is in charge of what their character believes.

I think that is where the charges of bad dming are coming in at, because it is being advocated that the dm and the rulebook decides what a character believes, that rubs a lot of people the wrong way

[FinnS]

Away from my books, but actually a cleric who doesn't worship a god is in the phb. You can worship the idea or the domain, per raw in the book. Secondly, "does not worship a god" does not equal atheist. Atheism is refusing to believe the gods exist.

I'm not saying DMs who enforce the no metal armor rule are bad dms, however, some of the people defending that stance are also using relatively harsh language. And it is strange to me, it begins to sound like even the idea of the homebrew (and some people make that sound like a dirty word) is offensive to them.

Wearing metal armor is homebrew, offering alternative medium armor materials is homebrew I agree with that, but the rule being enforced is a limit on the decisions you can make in character. It is telling you what your character believes. The player is in charge of what their character believes.

I think that is where the charges of bad dming are coming in at, because it is being advocated that the dm and the rulebook decides what a character believes, that rubs a lot of people the wrong way

Nope, you also skipped the part where the player chose to be a Druid KNOWING that they don't wear metal armor.
The player made the choice for what his character believes, not the DM or the rulebook.

[War_lord]

Wearing metal armor is homebrew, offering alternative medium armor materials is homebrew I agree with that, but the rule being enforced is a limit on the decisions you can make in character.

All rules are a limit on the decisions you can make in character, you can't jump 200 feet in the air in character, because the rules don't allow it. You can't speak every language in the universe at level 1 because it's in the rules.

If you play a Cleric, I'm going to have a basic conceit that your character is to some degree religious, otherwise why are they a Cleric? This whole "I'm a Cleric/Paladin/Druid but I act totally irreligious and don't care about my faith's taboos" is just Munchkin-ism.

[Xetheral]

I think the vegetarianism example is a good one, but I feel the wrong conclusion is being drawn from it. Vegetarians are defined as not eating meat, but plenty of vegetarians occasionally eat meat, either due to lapse, oversight, or out of consideration for a competing principle (e.g. not letting food go to waste). They're still vegetarians. If they do it regularly they may not be very good vegetarians, but they're still vegetarians.

Similarly, a Druid who regularly wears metal armor may (depending on the details of the campaign world) be a bad Druid, but they're still a Druid. Personally, I have no problem with a player wanting to play a bad Druid, just as I'd have no problem with a player wanting to play a bad Paladin who had a hard time sticking to their oath. But (outside of adventurer's league) other DMs can veto any concept they want.

I don't think RAW/houserules really enters into it--instead it's simply a question of what kinds of characters the DM is comfortable with allowing at a particular table.

As for AL, I don't believe AL DMs are empowered to refuse character concepts that depart too much from the archetypes described in the PHB. On the other hand, bringing in a character a particular DM doesn't like is unhelpful, so don't do it.

[Vaz]

Nice try but you missed a step again (on purpose I might add) and that conversation goes more like this...

1; I want my Druid to wear metal armor.
2; Sorry they won't.
1; Why?
2; Because you, the player, knew the restriction on metal armor before you even chose to be a Druid. If your character was so adamant about being able to wear metal armor then it's a good bet that that character would not have set out in life to become a Druid in the first place. It's much, much more likely that said character would have instead taken the path of the Nature Cleric emulating the ideals of Druids and Nature without the Druidic restrictions.

That sir, would be the end of said conversation.
There still is no spoon, sorry.

What the **** are you on about? Of course there's no spoon because we're not discussing spoons. We're discussing armour.

I like how you're saying that;

A Beast Shaper, casting Druid Spells while in Beast Shape, is better represented by another class because they wear Metal Armour.

What class is that, praytell?

[Tetrasodium]

Nope, you also skipped the part where the player chose to be a Druid KNOWING that they don't wear metal armor.
The player made the choice for what his character believes, not the DM or the rulebook.

"Goodberry says the berries appear in your hand. You can eat them and they heal 1 hp or they nourish. That's it. It doesn't say they have any taste, so therefore they don't. It doesn't say you can put them in your pocket, so therefore you can't..."

Just like goodberry & taste or pocketing, in contrast to the entirely unexplained will "not wear metal armor" sacred cow, there are a significant number of reasons why a particular background/race/homeland/whatever would that are actually more justified by the fluff & a lot of the rediculous compromise suggestions from its defenders are little more than blatantly punishing them for the fact that a properly built druid was scary good in 3.5.

Some of those reasons, like the dwarf land:mountain druid wearing armor made from ore mined in the mountain he or she has protected since the grain troll war scrubbed that blight from the soldier's mountain where he/she was born, which happens to be the mountain he/she draws strength from as a land:mountain druid include fluff from background, race and the class itself. You can't quote a roleplay restriction with no justification other than a "because" that did not even get the ink to say that much dedicated to it and expect people when you go all cartman demanding they respect your demand that it trumps all other fluff & that any disagreement shallt must quickly be met with a gm fiat level declaration that their character is not allowed to believe that or they are a problem player with entitlement & special snowflake sydrome while also acting like such an absurd delivery should be worthy of anything more than ridicule for the cartman level swollen head ego shrieking for respect of authoratah that it oh so clearly displays.

[War_lord]

The rules say that Druids will not wear metal armour Tetrasodium, that remains in the rules no matter how many nasty names you call Dungeon Masters. I really don't care what kind of Old Man Henderson crap you pull with your backstory to try and push your houserules on people. Backstory fluff doesn't trump rules. Snowflakism doesn't beat DM ruling.

Enforcing the actual rules, printed in the actual handbook for the actual players, isn't DM fiat. Your backstory might be a 300 page novella explaining exactly how you managed to get your hands on a Staff of the Magi, the DM still isn't going to give you a Staff of the Magi.

[tkuremento]

What the **** are you on about? Of course there's no spoon because we're not discussing spoons. We're discussing armour.

I like how you're saying that;

A Beast Shaper, casting Druid Spells while in Beast Shape, is better represented by another class because they wear Metal Armour.

What class is that, praytell?

The spoon thing is a reference to The Matrix.

[FinnS]

What the **** are you on about? Of course there's no spoon because we're not discussing spoons. We're discussing armour.

I like how you're saying that;

A Beast Shaper, casting Druid Spells while in Beast Shape, is better represented by another class because they wear Metal Armour.

What class is that, praytell?

I never said that or anything remotely close to it.

Like seriously, what part of YOU chose to be a Druid in the first place knowing full well when you did so that they came with a restriction from wearing metal armor is not being understood here?

I didn't think I was going to have to explain the Spoon reference but I guess I do.
It's from the Matrix when Neo goes to meet the Oracle and while waiting in an office with other "special" candidates, one of them, a kid, is bending a spoon with his mind. Neo picks up a spoon and tries to do the same with no success. The kid then explains to him that he is failing because he's actually trying to bend what he believes is a real spoon and that's impossible. But they are in the matrix so there actually is no spoon.

Your argument is that the DM or some rulebook doesn't have the right to dictate your characters behavior or beliefs. THAT argument is represented by the Spoon.
The reality is that YOU, the player, made that choice when you chose to be a Druid gaining all the benefits AND restrictions that that class came with.
Neither the DM nor the rulebook made that choice for you. YOU did!
Hence, there is no spoon.

[georgie_leech]

So if I'm following this right, DM's that won't let their Druids wear Metal Armor are wannabe tyrants who to crush all free will and player choice and are just the worst, and Players with Druids that want to wear Metal Armor are whiny special snowflakes who throw tantrums if they don't get their way.

The War on Straw certainly seems to be progressing nicely.

[Naanomi]

A Beast Shaper, casting Druid Spells while in Beast Shape, is better represented by another class because they wear Metal Armour.

What class is that, praytell?

That is a big pile of mechanics, not a character concept really. Adjusting mechanics to fit a character I have some flexibility with... starting with mechanics them building the character to justify that is backwards in most cases; doubly so if you start with mechanics that you demand are modified

In my years of DMing, 90% of this sort of stuff coming up in game is clear attempts at increasing the power level of a character... always 'my tribe of Elf lives in the jungle so we don't lose Con, we lose Charisma' or 'well my spells are alchemical potions, so it doesn't make sense that it can be counterspelled!'.... never 'only nobels were allowed to train in sword use, so my common soldier can't use that magic sword sorry'. And all the players I've played with over the years who tried it were either completely OK with it being denied, or proved themselves obnoxious in other regards as a player if they threw a fit about it

[Tanarii]

Wearing metal armor is homebrew, offering alternative medium armor materials is homebrew I agree with that, but the rule being enforced is a limit on the decisions you can make in character. It is telling you what your character believes. The player is in charge of what their character believes.

You may think this should be true, but the designers have written various roleplaying rules into the game that prove your last sentence is not correct. This is just one of them, but it's one of the strongest, because it brooks no uncertainly at all.

Other examples that often limit (to one degree or another) what a player can decide about what their character believes or how they want to act:
Only evil casters will frequently use necromancy spells to create undead.
Paladin Tenets
Alignments
Warlock Patrons
Clerics & Gods

I think that is where the charges of bad dming are coming in at, because it is being advocated that the dm and the rulebook decides what a character believes, that rubs a lot of people the wrong way

I agree, it absolutely does rub a lot of people the wrong way that roleplaying rules exist ... rules that don't allow them to choose whatever they want about how their character wants to act (which is different from how they actually manage to act) or what their character believes. That's self-evident from how many people strongly object to them whenever one of them comes up as a topic of discussion. Unfortunately for such people, there are a variety of rules like this, to one degree or another, baked into many Roleplaying games in general, and D&D 5e in particular. They can work with a DM to house-rule them out. Usually fairly easily, but sometimes more difficulty because they have direct mechanical implications. In this case, an AC bump of 1-3 pts.

Edit: for that matter, it bothers many people that archetypes conceptually exist at all. Or that certain mechanics have bakes in fluff. They want a pile of mechanics they can combine in any way that makes sense to them, and to 'fluff' their character however they want. Some tables that's totally cool at. Others it won't be cool at. In a custom campaign, even a large one like I run, it's easy enough to figure out by talking to the DM which it will be in advance, so you know how to approach the game table. Or if you want to play at it at all. For official play / AL this can be a little more dicey, but even then unless you're hopping around a lot you can still get a pretty good read on the local DM regulars involved with various stores & other hosted AL venues (emails distros, meet-ups, etc).

[Xetheral]

That is a big pile of mechanics, not a character concept really. Adjusting mechanics to fit a character I have some flexibility with... starting with mechanics them building the character to justify that is backwards in most cases; doubly so if you start with mechanics that you demand are modified

Despite your distaste, I would argue that a character concept is just as legitimate when it's mechanics-focused as when it's thematics-focused, at least so long as by the end of character creation both are sufficiently present to meet the standards of the table in question.

On top of that, the two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: I personally prefer an iterative process where thematic choices inform new mechanics choices which then suggest new thematics choices, ad nauseum. Either a mechanical choice or a thematic choice can be the launching off point, and sometimes even that original spark is abandoned midway through. (It can take me a *long* time to make a character this way, but I enjoy the process and like the tightly-woven results.)

[Vaz]

I never said that or anything remotely close to it.

Like seriously, what part of YOU chose to be a Druid in the first place knowing full well when you did so that they came with a restriction from wearing metal armor is not being understood here?

I didn't think I was going to have to explain the Spoon reference but I guess I do.
It's from the Matrix when Neo goes to meet the Oracle and while waiting in an office with other "special" candidates, one of them, a kid, is bending a spoon with his mind. Neo picks up a spoon and tries to do the same with no success. The kid then explains to him that he is failing because he's actually trying to bend what he believes is a real spoon and that's impossible. But they are in the matrix so there actually is no spoon.

Your argument is that the DM or some rulebook doesn't have the right to dictate your characters behavior or beliefs. THAT argument is represented by the Spoon.
The reality is that YOU, the player, made that choice when you chose to be a Druid gaining all the benefits AND restrictions that that class came with.
Neither the DM nor the rulebook made that choice for you. YOU did!
Hence, there is no spoon.

Okay, see that's where I thought I was going crazy. I was trying to think of applicable use of that quote, but no, here you are mangling it.

Tell you what, when i fancy misrepresenting an argument, i'll come a-knocking looking for advice, cheers. Until then, keep quoting the matrix in an attempt to, i don't know, try to be funny I guess?

Let me boil this down for you

RP limitation written into core games.
RP limitation not appropriate to character concept.
RP limitation cannot be changed because "It's the rules maaaaannnn"
Questions why there are RP limitations for some classes, and why RP limitations are not seperated from mechanics

Hence people saying divorce fluff from mechanics are being told "it's your fault man, you chose the rukes to bound yourself by, now you're ****ed" and can't actually ask why?

Also, non sequitur arguments. Jesus, we're bringing all of the stupid ways to defend your points out now. What next, only true scotsman?

Oh no, wait we've.already had that.

[Tetrasodium]

So if I'm following this right, DM's that won't let their Druids wear Metal Armor are wannabe tyrants who to crush all free will and player choice and are just the worst, and Players with Druids that want to wear Metal Armor are whiny special snowflakes who throw tantrums if they don't get their way.

The War on Straw certainly seems to be progressing nicely.

No, you are not quite following correctly. The problem is not with a gm saying no, I do it fairly regularly when gming;but I have a waiting list I could never empty, never tried to grow it, & typically include at least slightly better justifications to "RAW says, live with it" even if what I actually wind up being something like "lol... that's rediculous, no I will not let your bear totem barbarian use con as a casting stat if you multiclass wizard because it makes no sense & would be wildly broken". The problem is in the rules lawyer style way the whole thing is dismissed while both saying no any simultaneously declaring themselves above even pretending to justifying why this one sacred cow trumps all of the other cornerstone goals 5th edition internalized in its slaughter of legacy sacred cows just about everywhere else including a number of the gm advice/guidelines in the dmg. The fact that the entire ruleslawyer dismissal is delivered with snide condescension is where the criticism of gm style comes in. Vaz summed up the problem well in post #195.

[FinnS]

Okay, see that's where I thought I was going crazy. I was trying to think of applicable use of that quote, but no, here you are mangling it.

Tell you what, when i fancy misrepresenting an argument, i'll come a-knocking looking for advice, cheers. Until then, keep quoting the matrix in an attempt to, i don't know, try to be funny I guess?

My representation of the argument is quite sound, I assure you heh

Let me boil this down for you

No, let ME boil this down for you...

RP limitation written into core games.

Always been a part of RP games. No really, it has.

RP limitation not appropriate to character concept.

No no no *finger wag*
You pick your class or classes that best suit your concept. Your concept isn't allowed to modify or overwrite classes especially when said modifcation also comes with a mechanical power gain.
Not without DM approval in homebrew campaigns and not at all in AL play.

RP limitation cannot be changed because "It's the rules maaaaannnn"
Questions why there are RP limitations for some classes, and why RP limitations are not seperated from mechanics

What are you even talking about? Multiple posters, myself included, have expressed dozens of different ways and solutions both RP and mechanical for homebrew DM's to work with the player.
What I said I personally would not accept would be some player coming at me beaking off about poor design, horny creators and sacred cows instead of giving me actual RP reason from his characters perspective.
All that comes off to me is a lame and ridiculous attempt to get his character a power boost in the form of a couple AC points.

Hence people saying divorce fluff from mechanics are being told "it's your fault man, you chose the rukes to bound yourself by, now you're ****ed" and can't actually ask why?

Sure, go ahead and my answer would be that the rule is there because Druid's are all about Nature and wearing that much metal goes against Nature in their eyes.
It would then be my turn to ask you why your character should be able to disregard this restriction and I'll tell you right now, if you were to start spouting off about sacred cows and the like instead of presenting reasonable RP justification from your character, the answer would be a hard no and I wouldn't ever have even the slightest regret about making that call.

[Eldamar]

I just finished playing a Land Druid (pulled the wrong card in a Deck of Many Things). Completely gave up on having a decent AC halfway through and ran around naked with AC 11. Miracle I survived that long, but it was fun and amusing. Compound this with rolling below average on every HD at level up. 26 HP and 11 AC at level 6.

Don't worry about it? I did for the first few sessions, but once I embraced doing my best not to get hit or caring if I did, I enjoyed things a lot more.

You're squishy. Embrace the squishy. Show your foes you don't care that you're squishy.

[Naanomi]

Despite your distaste, I would argue that a character concept is just as legitimate when it's mechanics-focused as when it's thematics-focused, at least so long as by the end of character creation both are sufficiently present to meet the standards of the table in question.

On top of that, the two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: I personally prefer an iterative process where thematic choices inform new mechanics choices which then suggest new thematics choices, ad nauseum. Either a mechanical choice or a thematic choice can be the launching off point, and sometimes even that original spark is abandoned midway through. (It can take me a *long* time to make a character this way, but I enjoy the process and like the tightly-woven results.)

That's fair to a degree, so long as the end result in an actual character and not a laundry list of contreivances explaining how you were born with so many templates or something.

I was more stating I tend to me more flexible rules-wise with thematic characters than mechanics ones... for example: I'm more likely to switch the element on a few spells to poison damage type for your yuan-ti poison master than I would switch them to thunder for your sweet tempest Cleric/storm sorcerer interactions

[Vaz]

Always been a part of RP games. No really, it has.

Cool. RP a character, not a class. Do you introduce as Hargorth, the Druid, or Hargoth, King of the Blasted Heath, Breaker of the Thousand Shadows, the Skinweaver?

Suggestion on RP are wonderful. Playing a Feylike Druid with a weakness to Cold Iron based on their cultural heritage and background with an aversion to metal that transcends a character background? Sure. That is the choice and will of the Character, not the class mechanic.

No no no *finger wag*
You pick your class or classes that best suit your concept. Your concept isn't allowed to modify or overwrite classes especially when said modifcation also comes with a mechanical power gain.
Not without DM approval in homebrew campaigns and not at all in AL play.

**** AL as a reason for anything.

Lol, Mechanical Power Gain.

What are you even talking about? Multiple posters, myself included, have expressed dozens of different ways and solutions both RP and mechanical for homebrew DM's to work with the player.
What I said I personally would not accept would be some player coming at me beaking off about poor design, horny creators and sacred cows instead of giving me actual RP reason from his characters perspective.
All that comes off to me is a lame and ridiculous attempt to get his character a power boost in the form of a couple AC points.

And yet you've seemingly ignored that time when I gave in character justification going back to quote the same inane bull**** that even had 3.5e content creators complain about things were sacred cows and that they couldn't touch them. Called them 'nails' IIRC.

And you've also just said 'no, that's a power grab, I as a DM am too damn stupid to come up with a way in which this completely breaks the concept of druid and am too slow to think of anway in which this AC increase Overpowers this characters as opposed to using Mirror Image or Blur or Haste or even any of the other resources available to me to allow a character to do something."

When I started GMing, I was always told to say "Yes" to players. It was always a "Yes, but", and to use no obviously when appropriate, but if a players wants to do something, sure let them. Find a way to come about that.

You can either go to the extent of 'Sure, but you'll have to make an appropriate suit out of X leather", or you can let them find some in a shop which works the same but costs more. Or you can just streamline and say 'Sure, wear that metal, because ultimately it matters little, I am a DM and in charge of balance and if it becomes too unbalancing I can always throw an additional +2 onto any dice roll against AC vs the Druid while allowing the Druid to feel good about their charscter concept".

In short, I'm frankly glad I'm not one of your players. "hey man, can I wear metal armour as a druid?" "does it say that in the books?" "well no, but that was why I was ask-" "tough **** dude you knew that Druids don't wear metal, get ****ed", "well actually if you read my backsto-" "but what does it say in the book?" ergo we go round and round, and you continue to be a bellend.

Sure, go ahead and my answer would be that the rule is there because Druid's are all about Nature and wearing that much metal goes against Nature in their eyes.

You mean the same nature that created bulette's and the metal itself? And allows it to pick up minted gold, forged weapons and farming implements. Making armour out of living, and sentient creatures is completely okay, but taking ore from the earth and smelthing/forging it is so completely against nature that the DM has to come up with easily countered bull**** that is ultimately a power trip?

It would then be my turn to ask you why your character should be able to disregard this restriction and I'll tell you right now, if you were to start spouting off about sacred cows and the like instead of presenting reasonable RP justification from your character, the answer would be a hard no and I wouldn't ever have even the slightest regret about making that call.

As opposed to it being me playing the character and not some guy in an office? Whuch has been my standpoint from the first post in this thread? That the individual character can have reasons that ultimately boil down to 'he doesn't think like that because why would he?'.

[Citan]

I'm really baffled to see how some people here are defending the rule as "always 100% apply go f*** yourself" when the game creator themselves explicitely tell it can be waived.
(told in another way, they put -good- character concept above world fluff tradition. Which is imo the most sensible choice).
Sad, sad example of "thinking dictatorship" XD

[Spellbreaker26]

I'm really baffled to see how some people here are defending the rule as "always 100% apply go f*** yourself" when the game creator themselves explicitely tell it can be waived.
(told in another way, they put -good- character concept above world fluff tradition. Which is imo the most sensible choice).
Sad, sad example of "thinking dictatorship" XD

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Some people are saying that they would enforce this rule -that's in the PHB- and some other people are saying that enforcing this rule is badwrongGMing. That's pretty much how this arguement has gone.

I still don't understand why people don't just go Nature Cleric if they want to wear metal armour, that way you can even get heavy. It would also make sense for a nature-themed divine caster from a more settled society that could make this metal armour.

Really, if someone was able to give me a really good reason why a *druid* would wear metal armour (and there have been some decent suggestions, it should be said) I would allow it. If not, I would at least allow opportunities to make Ankheg armour and whatnot. But no GM is required to do any of those things, and a player should ask beforehand so they have a good expectation of whether they want to play a druid or not.

[Unoriginal]

No other class has RP limitations built into their character features?

"Actually, my Cleric is an agnostic, and think that putting your faith in any form of higher power or concept is not worth it."

"Actually, my Wizard doesn't carry a spellbook."

"Actually, my Monk channels ki through his Greataxe."

"Actually, my sorcerer studied in an university to get his powers."

Is Gandalf a Paladin? Course he is, look at his abilities. Is he a wizard? God no. In setting yes, mechanics wise? Nope.

If you wanted to put him in D&D, Gandalf would be a powerful Outsider. He has learned spells and stuff like that, but magic in Middle Earth is very different from D&D, anyway.

I'm really baffled to see how some people here are defending the rule as "always 100% apply go f*** yourself" when the game creator themselves explicitely tell it can be waived.
(told in another way, they put -good- character concept above world fluff tradition. Which is imo the most sensible choice).
Sad, sad example of "thinking dictatorship" XD

Nothing about "thinking dictatorship". It's a brawl between people who think "it's in the rules, I'm not forced to change it just because the player want to" and people who think "the player want to, it's not important what the rules say/it doesn't make any sense for the rules to say that", with people in both camp going full "your way is doubleplusnogood", which infuriate the others.

[FinnS]

Cool. RP a character, not a class. Do you introduce as Hargorth, the Druid, or Hargoth, King of the Blasted Heath, Breaker of the Thousand Shadows, the Skinweaver?

Heh, you can go with either and no one is saying you can't.
You choose what you want to be defined by. Could be your race too while we're at it.
That doesn't change the fact that you chose to be a Druid and in doing so accepted all the benefits AND restrictions of that class, regardless of how you define it or RP with it.

Suggestion on RP are wonderful. Playing a Feylike Druid with a weakness to Cold Iron based on their cultural heritage and background with an aversion to metal that transcends a character background? Sure. That is the choice and will of the Character, not the class mechanic.

You chose to accept the benefits and restrictions of the Druid class when you picked it.
There is no spoon past that undeniable FACT!
And you can RP an aversion to Cold Iron all you want but you're not actually weak to it unless the DM says you can be.
I don't think Cold Iron is even a thing any more. The higher level Fey I have looked at are only vulnerable to magic or silvered weapon. No mention of Cold Iron.
Oh no, I guess that means that you're going to be totally outraged about that now too?
I mean, how dare those ***hole designers sitting in their office removing Cold Iron as a property from the game! They just completely ****ed up your beautifully rendered background.
You should be pissed sir!!!

**** AL as a reason for anything.

Hey, I never brought up the AL in the first place, someone else did in a failed attempt to shoot down my argument involving possible solutions in a homebrew campaign.
Solutions that aren't even needed in the AL because for the same reason why a DM is more restricted into follow RAW in the AL, so are the players and one would not be able to ignore the Druid's restriction in the first place.

Lol, Mechanical Power Gain.

Why do you want to be able to wear metal armor again?
To gain 2-3 more AC?
I don't know what game you have been playing but a +2 or +3 to AC is a significant mechanical power gain.
I mean this is about as black and white as you can get so you just keeping on "loling" heh

And yet you've seemingly ignored that time when I gave in character justification going back to quote the same inane bull**** that even had 3.5e content creators complain about things were sacred cows and that they couldn't touch them. Called them 'nails' IIRC.

And?
So in other words, you were not only well aware of the restriction, you also actively disagree that the designers who were supposedly forced against their will to leave it in.
YET, you chose to be a Druid anyway...hmmmm
Also, I haven't been ignoring anything. I've answered everything put forth to me.
You on the other hand...have ignored almost everything I have said throughout this thread.
This post of yours more than proves that.

And you've also just said 'no, that's a power grab, I as a DM am too damn stupid to come up with a way in which this completely breaks the concept of druid and am too slow to think of anway in which this AC increase Overpowers this characters as opposed to using Mirror Image or Blur or Haste or even any of the other resources available to me to allow a character to do something."

When I started GMing, I was always told to say "Yes" to players. It was always a "Yes, but", and to use no obviously when appropriate, but if a players wants to do something, sure let them. Find a way to come about that.

You can either go to the extent of 'Sure, but you'll have to make an appropriate suit out of X leather", or you can let them find some in a shop which works the same but costs more. Or you can just streamline and say 'Sure, wear that metal, because ultimately it matters little, I am a DM and in charge of balance and if it becomes too unbalancing I can always throw an additional +2 onto any dice roll against AC vs the Druid while allowing the Druid to feel good about their charscter concept".

In short, I'm frankly glad I'm not one of your players. "hey man, can I wear metal armour as a druid?" "does it say that in the books?" "well no, but that was why I was ask-" "tough **** dude you knew that Druids don't wear metal, get ****ed", "well actually if you read my backsto-" "but what does it say in the book?" ergo we go round and round, and you continue to be a bellend.

This is so full of failure in reading comprehension and fact checking, I almost don't even know where to start.

First off I was very clear as to what circumstances I would just flat out say no. Namely if you came to me or at me really with a bunch of meta bull**** about designers and sacred cows with nary even an attempt at an RP justification.
I also made it quite clear is previous posts that I am more than willing to work with the player. That a Dwarf Druid would have the least likely aversion to wearing metal armor than other races and would prolly allow it.
That I would offer that the character does some Ankheg hunting. He has to work for it sure but in the end they get rewarded by actually getting a medium armor even better than any of the simple metal ones.
I don't know about you but I don't know too many players, any really, that wouldn't jump all over that offer.

You mean the same nature that created bulette's and the metal itself? And allows it to pick up minted gold, forged weapons and farming implements. Making armour out of living, and sentient creatures is completely okay, but taking ore from the earth and smelthing/forging it is so completely against nature that the DM has to come up with easily countered bull**** that is ultimately a power trip?

Nope, the power trip is on the player because it's the player disagreeing with a rule not the character.
You can continue to play this off all you want under the disguise that it's an "RP thing" but the second you start spouting off meta bull**** about game design, creators that want to bang the sexy Fey's they created or sacred cows instead of RP justifications, then you sir have just revealed your true motivations.

As opposed to it being me playing the character and not some guy in an office? Whuch has been my standpoint from the first post in this thread? That the individual character can have reasons that ultimately boil down to 'he doesn't think like that because why would he?'.

And for what I seriously hope is the last time...that "guy in the office" didn't make you choose to be a Druid. YOU made that choice and in doing so, YOU accepted the benefits and restrictions of that class.
There is no spoon, the only one making a choice is YOU.

[Giant2005]

As opposed to it being me playing the character and not some guy in an office? Whuch has been my standpoint from the first post in this thread? That the individual character can have reasons that ultimately boil down to 'he doesn't think like that because why would he?'.

But that isn't possible even from within a roleplaying perspective.
If the character grows up in an environment where metal armor is all the rage, then he isn't going to become a Druid - his love of metal armor doesn't mesh well with the druidic beliefs of hating metal armor. So he will choose some other career path (like a Nature Cleric).
Your character is only a Druid because he too hates the idea of confining himself in metal armor.

[LordVonDerp]

I don't see why being a dwarf matters, all Druids have proficiency in metal armors they will not wear. Having proficiency from your race isn't relevant.

Well of course, but what kind of dwarf refuses to wear metal armor (barring ones who get better AC elsewhere)?

[LordVonDerp]

Yeah...Other than the FACT that it flat out stats Druid's will not wear metal armor...Sure.
Since when does the simple absence of a penalty translate to being allowed?
It doesn't.
It says Druid's refuse to wear metal armor, end of story, there is no argument to be made on. So again, "If your DM allows it" should begin any answer regarding Druid's and metal armor.

That's a suggestion, not a rule

[Naanomi]

Well of course, but what kind of dwarf refuses to wear metal armor (barring ones who get better AC elsewhere)?

For a whole thread hinging on 'I don't want to be bound by the default fluff of a Druid, making me do so is horrible'; people are quick to jump on the default dwarven race fluff

(Also in forgotten realms: battle rangers, arctic and jungle dwarves, maztican dwarves)

[LordVonDerp]

"PROFICIENCIES
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will
not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
Weapons: Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces,
quarlerstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings. spears
Tools: Herbalism kit
Saving Throws: Intelligcnce, Wisdom"


It doesn't matter what you, as the player of that character want to do. What YOU did was pick to be a Druid. YOU did so knowing that YOU will not wear metal armor. That was YOUR choice going in.
That means quite simply with no possible argument to the contrary, that the only way YOU will be able to don metal armor and shields is IF YOUR DM ALLOWS IT THROUGH A HOUSE RULE!

There is no spoon Neo.

Proposing to your DM that as a Dwarf, you should be able to don metal armor and shields is a perfectly sound and reasonable request BUT the bottomline is it still requires DM approval period.

Note the underlined bit. Druids can totally wear metal armor if they want, but most choose not to.

[Tetrasodium]

"Actually, my Cleric is an agnostic, and think that putting your faith in any form of higher power or concept is not worth it."

"Actually, my Wizard doesn't carry a spellbook."

"Actually, my Monk channels ki through his Greataxe."

"Actually, my sorcerer studied in an university to get his powers."

Your wizard engraves it on a special slate tablet instead of a book?.. sure
Your monk draws hid ki through his ancestral grateaxe & needs to keep it strapped to his back in order to do so?... sure
Your sorcerer went to a university where he learned how to use his powers?... sure, idgaf
Your cleric of war was sent out by his church of the dark six to do pr by providing blessings from the mockery/traveler/etc to the soldiers but doesn't believe in the gods so much as the ideals & cpncepts we use them to represent?... um, ok.

But that isn't possible even from within a roleplaying perspective.
If the character grows up in an environment where metal armor is all the rage, then he isn't going to become a Druid - his love of metal armor doesn't mesh well with the druidic beliefs of hating metal armor. So he will choose some other career path (like a Nature Cleric).
Your character is only a Druid because he too hates the idea of confining himself in metal armor.

Like all the peta folks in coal country with coal miner relatives who aren't going to like in the dark without electricity even if they consider electrical efficiency to be important? The celtic people certainly did not have any problems with metal as evidenced by nauda silverhand & what remains we have since dug up any more than the germanic barbarians. The only difference is that there is a reason why a barbarian won't wear armor (ie it's worse than UAD) while even the designers of 5e admit that the metal armor thing is just a sacred cow that skipped the slaughter.

With that said, while a person raised in a place where trees/wood are an exotic & bizarre import from some far off unnatural place (i.e. above ground) because they are a dwarf/kobold/drow/from underdark/etc, they are going to have a different viewpoint on what is natural than one who worships the oak & yew trees they feel as bizarre.

Why are they bizarre?... because by raw (since some people's entire argument is "no justification matters because raw says they wont & it's unreasonable to expect any decent gm to justify it in any way shape or form") the rp fluff actually supports them having a tie to a different part of nature

Spoiler: volo's

Show

Kobolds are naturally skilled at tunneling. Similar to
dwarves, they seem to have a near-instinctive sense of
what sections of stone or earth are strong or weak, are
bearing a load or are safe to excavate, or are likely to
contain minerals or offer access to water. This ability
enables them to fashion secure homes in places where
other creatures wouldn't feel safe.

Spoiler

Show

The Circle of the Land is made up of mystics and sages
w ho safeguard ancient knowledge and rites through
a vast oral tradition. These druids meet within sacred
circles of trees or standing stones to whisper primal
secrets in Druidic. The circle’s wisest members preside
as the chief priests of com m unities that hold to the Old
Faith and serve as advisors to the rulers of those folk.
As a m em ber of this circle, your magic is influenced
by the land where you were initiated into the circle’s
mysterious rites.

but when the almost immediately defenders started with forcefully dismissing things like those with "raw says they won't, you picked your class now live with it" while acting like justifying why one bit of raw trumps another bit of raw with even the thinnest veneer of fluff was the gold standard mark of a great gm who shall not be coached by the unwashed masses of experienced & practicing gm's who aren't really interested in either playing d&d or playing a role playing game as opposed to running a daycare.