Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Cybren]

I was simply showing will, the book says will not, which implies no desire.

I don't see any qualifiers like "some" or "most" or "a few" in the proficiency section of the PHB anyway, so there's not much argument in saying it's not a broadly intended rule

[Tetrasodium]

For that matter, I REALLY don't care about the origin of the fluff, but my vision of the [b]restriction is tightly related to the Wild Shaping[b].
So as I said, even if I allowed metal armor wearing, I would probably add a restriction on Wild Shape as a consequence (Druid dip = no Wild Shape whatsoever, Druid pure = you can only Wild Shape into smaller forms, and the metal doesn't get merged, instead fall on gound -and you obviously can't "grow back" directly into it when ending the Wild Shape).

Bold emphasis mine because nine pages later we get to the heart of why the OP even had a problem to begin with since halfplate +shield is going to be 17-19 AC depending on dex allowing them to trivially exceed the 16 AC he was having trouble passing due to fighters justifiably getting first dibs on magic shields, rogue types justifiably arguing for claim any magic light armor. This is a significant problem for a land druid who can shift into the CR1 brown bear at level [i]eight[i] instead of [i]two. This CR1 brown bear at level 8 with +5 to hit making it more useful for what is effectively temp hp at the cost of not being able to cast spells before 18.

Yes the land druid gets some extra spells & spell recovery, but unlike in previous editions where barkskin was pretty awesome... it's pretty awful in 5th where it prevents you from casting any other concentration spells (including the land druid bonus spells that need it) and gives the recipient "an ac of no less than 16". So dear OP, this pettiness displayed by the gm's seemingly deciding that this one bit of fluff is a central core tennet to the game world they craft (straight out of the books & modules in many cases) they readily admit to be fluff is why your land druid felt so handicappped... But hey a couple pages back, one of them suggested graciously allowing you to 1 hunt critters for parts, 2 spend more gold than the base metal variant, and 3 make crafting rolls in order to get medium armor that was A lower in AC than metal armor, B require regular replacement through the three steps I repeated, and C will break after you sustain a certain amount of damage. Sorry your GM felt the need to punish your land druid over an irrelevant bit of fluff torn away & murdered in just about every other class in 5th edition. Sorry that your GM chose to ignore the multiple times in the dmg that suggest listening to players & allowing flexibility on things like this because apparently RAW is a sacred thing to be interpreted as strictly as possible when used against a player & a meaningless thing to ignore when it tells the gm to listen to/work with players as so many in this thread have displayed in this thread. Sorry OP that barkskin is worse than mage armor with shiekd prepped to add +5ac in a way that brings it to 17 on a reaction with no concentration for either, unfortunately there are a number of people who feel strongly that you must be punished over this bit of fluff.... If your GM refuses to work with you without punishing you in new ways while doing so, I suggest finding a new gm

[Unoriginal]

And? I'm sure some druids have no desire to wear metal armor. "Some", not "all".

Except it is written "druids will not". Not "some druids will not". "druids (all of them) will not"



Seriously, I'm not even against Druids wearing metal armor if the DM agrees to it, but can we not pretend that the book says what it does not?

[Tetrasodium]

Except it is written "druids will not". Not "some druids will not". "druids (all of them) will not"

The dmg suggests you should beoverruled with a different all/some example

Spoiler

Show

Without changing the way a class functions, you can
root it more firmly in the world by associating the class
with a particular race or culture.
For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact
despite having no connection to a culture that normally
produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the
character's story and that of your world, rather than
shutting down possibilities.

Be honest, it's all about punishing druids & letting go of that so things can grow is too much of a blow to the ego so the dmg shall be ignored in favor of strict enforcement of the vague bit of undefined fluff that somehow escaped the slaughter that executed the justifications for it and similar just about everywhere else in 5th edition.

[Cybren]

I don't see how not letting druids wear metal armor is "punishing" th, and I kind of think that's a toxic attitude to bring to a game

[Unoriginal]

Yes the land druid gets some extra spells & spell recovery, but unlike in previous editions where barkskin was pretty awesome... it's pretty awful in 5th where it prevents you from casting any other concentration spells (including the land druid bonus spells that need it) and gives the recipient "an ac of no less than 16". So dear OP, this pettiness displayed by the gm's seemingly deciding that this one bit of fluff is a central core tennet to the game world they craft (straight out of the books & modules in many cases) they readily admit to be fluff is why your land druid felt so handicappped... But hey a couple pages back, one of them suggested graciously allowing you to 1 hunt critters for parts, 2 spend more gold than the base metal variant, and 3 make crafting rolls in order to get medium armor that was A lower in AC than metal armor, B require regular replacement through the three steps I repeated, and C will break after you sustain a certain amount of damage. Sorry your GM felt the need to punish your land druid over an irrelevant bit of fluff torn away & murdered in just about every other class in 5th edition. Sorry that your GM chose to ignore the multiple times in the dmg that suggest listening to players & allowing flexibility on things like this because apparently RAW is a sacred thing to be interpreted as strictly as possible when used against a player & a meaningless thing to ignore when it tells the gm to listen to/work with players as so many in this thread have displayed in this thread. Sorry OP that barkskin is worse than mage armor with shiekd prepped to add +5ac in a way that brings it to 17 on a reaction with no concentration for either, unfortunately there are a number of people who feel strongly that you must be punished over this bit of fluff.... If your GM refuses to work with you without punishing you in new ways while doing so, I suggest finding a new gm

There is nothing "punishing" or "petty" about Druids not wearing metal armor or Barkskin being a Concentration spell.

[DivisibleByZero]

The dmg suggests you should beoverruled with a different all/some example

Spoiler

Show

Without changing the way a class functions, you can
root it more firmly in the world by associating the class
with a particular race or culture.
For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact
despite having no connection to a culture that normally
produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the
character's story and that of your world, rather than
shutting down possibilities.

Be honest, it's all about punishing druids & letting go of that so things can grow is too much of a blow to the ego so the dmg shall be ignored in favor of strict enforcement of the vague bit of undefined fluff that somehow escaped the slaughter that executed the justifications for it and similar just about everywhere else in 5th edition.

One more time.
Just in case you missed it the first two times.
That discussion in the DMG is not pertinent.

It is basically saying: Hey, look, if you want to be super restrictive in your game and make class and subclass choices racially locked, go for it. But you should probably be prepared to have a little wiggle room.
It is certainly NOT saying: Hey, look, when your players ask you for something, you should say Yes.

The passage you keep pointing to is telling DMs that if they want to be more restrictive, they can be, but they should work with players.
Context matters. And the context of that passage is not about being more lenient, like you would have us believe. It is about being more restrictive, which counters your entire argument. So using it as basis for your argument is inherently flawed.

And once again, stop saying that following the rules is punishing anyone. It isn't.

[KorvinStarmast]

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

That isn't fluff. Those are the rules. Unless you consider your armor proficiency fluff.
The reason may be fluff, but the rules say that he will not wear it. Which means he will not put it on. So it doesn't matter if he is technically proficient, because it will never adorn his body. Full stop.

This. Also like to point out that role playing is a part of this game. If one does not want to role play a druid, why choose that class?

Scimitars are the DnD equivalent of machetes. Those are good for someone out and about in nature all the time, to clear away brush. Sickles are actually farm implements. That's why those two "metal" weapons are allowed, because they are items that, thematically speaking, a druid would be accustomed to using.

And that role playing thing.

It's not actually helpful to just tell the OP to do things that are against the rules and then argue that people who don't break the rules are being bad at D&D.

Preach it, brother.

Well a lot of things have changed over the years. ...one thing that has never changed is the Druid's aversion to wearing metal armor.

As a Endritch Wizardry era druid, can I get an Amen?

My group turned the carcass of their first slain dragon into dragon scale armor for the druid.

Hey, role playing! What a great idea! *tips cap*

[Unoriginal]

The dmg suggests you should beoverruled with a different all/some example

Spoiler

Show

Without changing the way a class functions, you can
root it more firmly in the world by associating the class
with a particular race or culture.
For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact
despite having no connection to a culture that normally
produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the
character's story and that of your world, rather than
shutting down possibilities.

For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions


Would you say that those things are "punishing" people for choosing a race over another? Because all those exemples are about DM deciding to be restrictive.

Be honest, it's all about punishing druids

No? Why would I want to punish the druids? There is nothing punishing about what I've been saying.

letting go of that so things can grow is too much of a blow to the ego so the dmg shall be ignored in favor of strict enforcement of the vague bit of undefined fluff that somehow escaped the slaughter that executed the justifications for it and similar just about everywhere else in 5th edition.

First, what "slaughter" are you talking about? And what do you mean by "so things can grow"?

Second, how is it ignoring the DMG when the DMG clearly says "You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing a player character to break these restrictions"?

Third, I'm not against houseruling that Druids can wear metal armor. I'm against a) people saying that it's allowed by the basic rules (it is factually not, and exceptions are at the discretion of the DM) and b) people insulting the game designers or the DMs because they don't like that Druids won't wear metal armor.

[KorvinStarmast]

just make it out of bone, man. If a DM denies you both the metal and bone flavor, he never wanted you playing druid in the first places and is unfit to DM

Or doesn't like putting up with munchkins.

Or we all just want to play D&D.

If a new player tried to pull this sort of thing at our table we wouldn't invite them back.

Indeed. Same page and all that.

A typical Druid wearing metal armor on purpose is kind of like a Cleric of Boccob saying "actually, I think magic is useless and shouldn't be used."

That too.

Personally I want to play D&D and so I use the D&D rules. I want the Druids to actually be Druids.

Who have the best herb, or so I hear ...

I'll admit, any point where someone says that the DM can tell the player what they can and can't do because of their characters beliefs feels wrong to me.

The DM and the character are, by the rules, supposed to get together and flesh out stuff like that. See character creation, backgrounds, class descriptions, etc. This isn't a "boot up the game and click a bunch of buttons" PC game. It's a meat based interface.

[dejarnjc]

This. Also like to point out that role playing is a part of this game. If one does not want to role play a druid, why choose that class? And that role playing thing. Preach it, brother.
As a Endritch Wizardry era druid, can I get an Amen?
Hey, role playing! What a great idea! *tips cap*

So basically you're admitting you view it as fluff, not a game design thing. Also, IMO this kind of rule w/ no guidelines or background or mechanical penalty actually hinders role playing.


I played a druid once who was raised to honor the druidic ways but was "encouraged" to leave his circle as he grew older for displaying non-communal traits such as avarice and materialism. He then ventured into the world and became a successful businessman / adventurer while maintaining loose ties with his circle. This particular character loved modernism, loved urban areas (the clean and harmonious w/ nature ones - like elven/halfling cities and towns), and loved to make money and put on a show. He was also very concerned and cautious about his own life, often encouraging his allies to take risks while shunning doing so himself.

During one session that consisted of a lot of shopping, one of the other characters asked him why he's still wearing his shabby hide armor. I had no answer to that and it felt incredibly out of character that I hadn't adorned him in a regal, gold encrusted breastplate of some sort.


Any who, that's my two-cents. This is all a silly argument for what it's worth but I'm enjoying it anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Matrix. \

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.

Awesomeness. The Unmunchkin lives!!!

So basically you're admitting

As soon as you typed that, you are being willfully dishonest to me. Do not try to put words into someone else's mouth. It is rude. If you with to be dishonest and rude, please do not reply to my posts. Plenty of other folks to talk to.

you view it as fluff,

No, I utterly reject the vile principle that there is this binary distinction between "rules" and "fluff." The so-called community that arrived at that have harmed D&D (and other RPGs) with that attitude. It's a sickness. The excuses made to support the crafting of, and promotion of that distinction completely misses the point of a role playing game.

And more to the point, the Druid not wearing metal armor is indeed RAW, as has been pointed out with great frequency in this discussion.

What the medium armor proficiency opening offers is some great role playing and story building baseline that is story oriented, not Min Max meta gaming oriented on one more point in Armor Class.

Welcome to Role Playing games, they are great fun.

[Astofel]

I would have absolutely no issues if a player approached me asking if their druid could wear metal armour if they approached me with a character concept for which wearing the armour would make sense. However, if they were playing a stereotypical 'lives in the forest, loves plants and animals' druid, I would say no. I would then say "But, if you're willing to go looking for alternate materials to make armour out of, I'll accommodate that." And if they were willing, I'd create a quest for ironwood/ankheg carapace/bulette hide/dragon scales or whatever. And in no way is that punishing the druid (for the record, I've never played 3e, I started with 5e). It simply makes sense that if metal alternatives were readily available, they'd be in the equipment list and everyone would use them. And maybe they are readily available in some settings, but I'm assuming a 'default fantasy' setting here. Once the druid had their alternative armour, it'd function just like the metal armour, only it wouldn't be metal. Arguably that makes it better, since it can't be targeted by Heat Metal, but that's rarely going to matter.

But the above is all homeruling. If I, for some reason, were to run a game where I decided to follow RAW as strictly as possible, I would simply tell any metal-desiring druid that their character chose to become a druid, and in doing so chose not to wear metal armour, and if they are so dead-set on wearing metal armour they can choose another class or find another DM or game willing to accommodate their metal-wearing druid. And if for some strange reason the druid was Dominated or tricked into putting metal armour on, there would be no consequences but I'd tell the player that their character takes the armour off at the earliest opportunity.

Hopefully that's enough to address everyone's issues, but I somehow doubt it. For what it's worth, I think that the rule as it is could be worded better. It'd be much simpler to say 'druids are not proficient in armour made mainly of metal', although that would make druids the only class that make you lose proficiencies when multiclassed into.

[Unoriginal]

So basically you're admitting you view it as fluff, not a game design thing. Also, IMO this kind of rule w/ no guidelines or background or mechanical penalty actually hinders role playing.


I played a druid once who was raised to honor the druidic ways but was "encouraged" to leave his circle as he grew older for displaying non-communal traits such as avarice and materialism. He then ventured into the world and became a successful businessman / adventurer while maintaining loose ties with his circle. This particular character loved modernism, loved urban areas (the clean and harmonious w/ nature ones - like elven/halfling cities and towns), and loved to make money and put on a show. He was also very concerned and cautious about his own life, often encouraging his allies to take risks while shunning doing so himself.

During one session that consisted of a lot of shopping, one of the other characters asked him why he's still wearing his shabby hide armor. I had no answer to that and it felt incredibly out of character that I hadn't adorned him in a regal, gold encrusted breastplate of some sort.

At this point, as a DM, I'd be asking why your character is still getting levels in Druid.

I mean, he kind of abandoned most of the Druidic business, even if not actively working against it. I would ask you if you would rather multiclass as Bard or Rogue next level.

Hell, being asked "why are you still not wearing metal armor" would be an intersting start for some introspection. Did him having never thought of putting on a metal armor mean that he still subconsciously held the Druidic ideals? Or maybe that he was longing the community he was once part of? Or maybe it would make him realize that it was so ingrained into him that he has never been truly free until now?

Making him meet with one of his old mentors or friends from back then would be a wonderful RP opportunity.

[Naanomi]

At this point, as a DM, I'd be asking why your character is still getting levels in Druid.

I mean, he kind of abandoned most of the Druidic business, even if not actively working against it. I would ask you if you would rather multiclass as Bard or Rogue next level.

Sounds like a character who took the Hermit/Acolyte style custom background (her secret is that she knows the secret druidic language) to represent growing up in a druidic circle but not practicing the arts of the class itself

[dejarnjc]

At this point, as a DM, I'd be asking why your character is still getting levels in Druid.

I mean, he kind of abandoned most of the Druidic business, even if not actively working against it. I would ask you if you would rather multiclass as Bard or Rogue next level.

Why Bard or Rogue? Last I checked merchant is a background not a class.

[Unoriginal]

Sounds like a character who took the Hermit/Acolyte style custom background (her secret is that she knows the secret druidic language) to represent growing up in a druidic circle but not practicing the arts of the class itself

dejarnjc said the character's class was Druid.

[dejarnjc]

Sounds like a character who took the Hermit/Acolyte style custom background (her secret is that she knows the secret druidic language) to represent growing up in a druidic circle but not practicing the arts of the class itself

Except the character was practicing the arts and ended up maintaining ties with the druid circle (acted as their eyes and ears).... sooooooo

[dejarnjc]

I mean, he kind of abandoned most of the Druidic business, even if not actively working against it. I would ask you if you would rather multiclass as Bard or Rogue next level.

Dude you gotta read up on your druids. It's about maintaining balance and ending the undead NOT about hiding in the woods and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. My character actively hunted the undead and relished in urban areas that harmonized with the natural world. He saw sentient beings as beings of nature after all.

[Unoriginal]

Dude you gotta read up on your druids. It's about maintaining balance and ending the undead NOT about hiding in the woods and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. My character actively hunted the undead and relished in urban areas that harmonized with the natural world. He saw sentient beings as beings of nature after all.

Well, if he still did the Druid business, respected the religion, and all that stuff... I must say, in his place, I'd have gotten the most impressive, expensive armor made of animal possible.

Like, the skin of a legendary predator, hunted and slayed in an honorable way, and then worked on by a master armorsmith who'd add gold embroideries and jewels to your liking.

... Great, now I want to see a Druid clad in a giant Dire Tiger skin.

[Tanarii]

Or doesn't like putting up with munchkins.

Awesomeness. The Unmunchkin lives!!!

Let's not be insulting. We've got enough problems with two different "sides" of this issue, without people on either of them throwing insults. (Edit: I say that as someone who is trying to police himself on that at the moment.)

[tkuremento]

Let's not be insulting. We've got enough problems with two different "sides" of this issue, without people on either of them throwing insults. (Edit: I say that as someone who is trying to police himself on that at the moment.)

Yea, there are many times I could have stooped to such a level and thrown insults related to salt or why someone seems negative or hateful on all their posts even beyond this thread.

[Naanomi]

Except the character was practicing the arts and ended up maintaining ties with the druid circle (acted as their eyes and ears).... sooooooo

That is a tricky situation that I don't think is well spelled out in the rules... what happens when a Cleric turns against their God? I would guess that in most settings a Cleric wouldn't keep all their class abilities, Druids... depends on the mechanism of druidism in the setting. In Forgotten Realms Druids are still servants of (nature-y) Gods so would be the same as Clerics... in Dark Sun they are empowered by Nature Spirits who would make the decisions about their powers. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Eberron but I would guess it is more permissive (as it is with Clerics in general)

[Tanarii]

Yea, there are many times I could have stooped to such a level and thrown insults related to salt or why someone seems negative or hateful on all their posts even beyond this thread.

I'm more trying to police myself to make sure I don't inadvertently imply something insulting. Like it's somehow badwrongfun to want to change the rules. That's fine and dandy. Just as not changing the rules is fine and dandy. Wanting roleplaying bound to classes (ie strong archetypes) is fine, as is wanting it to be disassociated. Insisting that one or the other is somehow badwrongfun is easy to imply, especially since lots of people take using the terms RAW or house-rule to mean exactly that, even if it's not meant.

What I AM doing is saying: look, this is the words written in the book, which (by my definition of what it means) makes it the Rule as Written. Even the Sage Advice tells you this, and explains why it's the written rule ... and then says if you want to run a Druid that is an exception, talk to your DM. That doesn't mean it's suddenly not the Rule as Written. It just means the DM is the person who arbitrates which rules as written should be followed, and which can be changed.

[tkuremento]

I'm more trying to police myself to make sure I don't inadvertently imply something insulting. Like it's somehow badwrongfun to want to change the rules. That's fine and dandy. Just as not changing the rules is fine and dandy. Wanting roleplaying bound to classes (ie strong archetypes) is fine, as is wanting it to be disassociated. Insisting that one or the other is somehow badwrongfun is easy to imply, especially since lots of people take using the terms RAW or house-rule to mean exactly that, even if it's not meant.

What I AM doing is saying: look, this is the words written in the book, which (by my definition of what it means) makes it the Rule as Written. Even the Sage Advice tells you this, and explains why it's the written rule ... and then says if you want to run a Druid that is an exception, talk to your DM. That doesn't mean it's suddenly not the Rule as Written. It just means the DM is the person who arbitrates which rules as written should be followed, and which can be changed.

You'd think because similar stuff has been said the thread would be done by now. Hopefully the arguing stops.

[Tetrasodium]

That is a tricky situation that I don't think is well spelled out in the rules... what happens when a Cleric turns against their God? I would guess that in most settings a Cleric wouldn't keep all their class abilities, Druids... depends on the mechanism of druidism in the setting. In Forgotten Realms Druids are still servants of (nature-y) Gods so would be the same as Clerics... in Dark Sun they are empowered by Nature Spirits who would make the decisions about their powers. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Eberron but I would guess it is more permissive (as it is with Clerics in general)

http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Druidic_sects Ironically they are more like the different cleric sects from the early days, but grounded in the realities of a d&d setting and simultaneously a lot like 5th edition's extremely broad make it yourself paladin oaths. Aside from what is basically an apocalypse cult, they mostly believe in coexisting with civilization and/or protecting the world against very specific things; some (i.e. ashbound druids) would have significant difficulty just being in a town of any noteworthy size, but most of them can coexist as described without anyone even raising an eyebrow. If 3.5's druid didn't have the potential to be built in such ungodly overpowered ways they probably would havew been far more interesting given their significant influences in so many different pies

[Vogonjeltz]

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

That isn't fluff. Those are the rules.
Unless you consider your armor proficiency fluff.
The reason may be fluff, but the rules say that he will not wear it. Which means he will not put it on. So it doesn't matter if he is technically proficient, because it will never adorn his body. Full stop.

Fluff is what people call rules they don't want to follow.

There is no reason

Stop you right there, that's not what the quoted text says.

Reason #1: It's a taboo
Reason #2: They might use armors made of something other than metal. (i.e. scales)

So, at least two reasons right there.

My point exactly.

It's not actually helpful to just tell the OP to do things that are against the rules and then argue that people who don't break the rules are being bad at D&D.

FWIW my pov exactly. Arguing for activities that run contrary to the rules is a waste of everyones time and forum space.

There is no in-game mechanical reason for druids to not wear metal. At all.

Taboo against wearing metal armor. Taboo suggests their order will react negatively to such a thing, expel them, maybe even kill them for such heretical activity. That mechanical enough for you?

when the Druid dons metal armour

Irrelevent. We know the Druids won't do that, it's right there in the rules.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keep it civil in here and perhaps try to help the OP.

[Vaz]

Taboo against wearing metal armor. Taboo suggests their order will react negatively to such a thing, expel them, maybe even kill them for such heretical activity. That mechanical enough for you?

There was one class which made Taboo's part of its features. The Wu Jen, back in 3.5. That was RP mechanics done right. It encouraged you to choose a Taboo which you followed because you were a Wu Jen. It allowed you to design your character around a certain way and have kinks that were appropriate to itself.

RP mechanics is a term I'm using to reference forced RP, such as the Oath of Devotion. The Paladin is free to interpret his Oaths within reason. He has a choice on whether to follow them or not.

The Druid? No. He will not. Categorically not. Because of god awful wording in a poorly edited book that is already suffused with FAQ's and has the games makers ignoring it. I don't put stock in Sage Advice but apparently a load of people here do, so stick that your metaphorical pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevent. We know the Druids won't do that, it's right there in the rules.

Won't. As in will not. As in will, the faculty of determination. Which is appropriate to the individual.

The order of druids kicking them out is part of the mechanics of the order of druids, not the Druid class features.

Let's put it another way.

If the rules said;

Profs; Armor; light, medium armour and shields not made of metal

That is more accurate to say.

As to why they have proficiency in Half Plate but will not wear it, you've got to wonder how they became proficient with it in the first place.

If the rules had said 'if a Druid wears armour of metal, they will lose access to their ability to Wild Shape and the Spellcasting feature from Druid Class levels', sure. But it doesn't.

There is literally nothing to tell you what happens if you wear metal armour. Other than that you won't. Which doesn't account for the individuals' will.

Ctrl+F "will not" and all you get are references to people's willpower and determination; Artemis "will not rest" (so DM, that's no Short or Long Rests for Artemis, good luck!), Rustic Hospitality "will not risk their lives for you" (means that they cannot be Dominated), Retainers "wil not follow you into obviously dangerous areas)...

And that's it. Words have meanings, and the writer messed up, along with a lot of other mistakes within the book.

Except it comes down to the DM whether something is waived or not, and innthe face of incontrovertible evidence and RP suggestions, DM's continue to quote the PHB like it's a holy grail.

[tkuremento]

There was one class which made Taboo's part of its features. The Wu Jen, back in 3.5. That was RP mechanics done right. It encouraged you to choose a Taboo which you followed because you were a Wu Jen. It allowed you to design your character around a certain way and have kinks that were appropriate to itself.

That reminds me of Pathfinder having Monk Vows that could be taken and could give a bigger Ki Pool for remaining vocally silent for instance. There were others like cleanliness and celibacy. You didn't have to take any of them either, but could if you wanted to.