Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Giant2005]

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.

But it does account for the individual's will.
That individual's will is obviously aligned with the values of being a Druid, otherwise he wouldn't be a Druid - he would be a Nature Cleric or any other class.
The fact that he was willing to take that vocation at all adds certainty to the fact that not wearing metal armor is exactly within the confines of his will as an individual.

[Chaosmancer]

Had to get on my computer, phone can’t handle multi-quoting. Also have my PHB beside me.

Seems a missed a lot more of this conversation than I thought I did. I apologize for that, but I’m continuing anyways.

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.

Rules limiting physical capabilities are different from rules limiting beliefs.

And in the Druid case, wearing metal armor is not munchkinism if you mean it in the manner of trying to go beyond the power level the designer’s intended. If druids weren’t meant to have better than a 12+dex AC, then they would have simply had light armor instead of light and medium. It is obviously intended they wear some sort of medium armor beyond hide, otherwise the rules would have been written differently.

I didn't think I was going to have to explain the Spoon reference but I guess I do.
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.

So the spoon that doesn’t exist is represented by our argument?

Immediately there is a spoon, because we are making an argument.

However, in the context of the Matrix, the spoon is supposed to represent that the reality they are in is a construct that does not truly exist by itself. Like say for instance, the rules of a book representing an alternate reality. And that the reality represented by the spoon can be altered by people who actually exist outside of that construct, like say, the players in the game.

Hence, there is no spoon, the game and it’s rules exist as the players and dms agree upon them, not as separate realities.

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.

Have they?

Only evil casters will frequently use necromancy spells to create undead.

Is stated nowhere.
In fact, the closest we get is the PHB section for the necromancer wizard (whose core ability is creating undead) which states: “Not all Necromancers are evil” though it does go on to state the forces they work with are “considered taboo by many societies”

So, stating that only evil casters will use Animate dead frequently is a houserule, a player is more than free to decide that their character is a good aligned necromancer and is completely supported by the rules.

Alignments

Practically do not exist in 5e. There is a section that talks about it, sure, but nothing that says a player has to pick one, follow one, and in fact it even states that “few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment”. Which tells me that they can act outside of that alignment, and there is no expectation they will not occasionally make a decision that breaks with their alignment.

Warlock Patrons

Interesting choice to put this here. You obviously can’t mean specific patrons, because that is far too mutable. In fact, nothing in the Warlock class says you have to have a patron who is aware of you. GOO doesn’t, and by association you could make a Warlock who is directly tied to the Hells instead of making a deal with a Devil. Warlock’s can’t choose to defy their patrons? But part of the suggested arc of a Fiend Warlock is traveling the Nine Hells to slay their patron and reclaim their freedom. I’d label that as defying them.
So what about a Warlock patron is out of player control? They can choose who it is, the nature of the deal they struck, and how they react to the patron and their long term plans. Seems to be almost entirely a collaboration between the player and the DM on that.

Clerics & Gods

I’m actually shocked, I was certain there was a line in the PHB about clerics not having to choose a diety, about being able to choose a domain to worship instead of a god or goddess. I can’t find that line anymore.

However, it does allow you to pick any domain regardless of deity, as long as you can connect it to an aspect of your deity. Which, is laughably easy to do in a lot of cases.

Also, despite needing to have a deity who is the source of your power, you do not have to worship them. You don’t even have to like them. Nothing says that you have to, so playing a character who was chosen by a deity to fulfill a purpose without the character being a worshipper is legit. As is playing a character who worships and entire pantheon of deities, because nothing says you are in a monogamous relationship with your deity. So the player still has a lot of leeway in this decision.

Paladin Tenets

The 500 lb gorilla in the room. The paladin is the ultimate expression of Role-playing rules. However, a close look at those oaths reveals a few things.
1) They are incredibly vague. The Oath of the Ancients in particular is so vaguely worded that you could justify almost anything. In addition, two tenants can be in conflict, and a player is either breaking his oath either way, or free to choose one tenant as more important to them than the other.
2) They encourage rewriting. Stated outright in the Oath of Devotion is that “the exact words and strictures of [the oath] vary”. Which means a player is free to talk to their DM about a different oath, altering their character and what they believe.
3) Finally, a paladin is free to break his oath. If they do so, they generally must seek absolution or forgiveness. It is only when they violate their oath and do not seek forgiveness that a player and DM can talk about making the paladin follow a different oath, become an oathbreaker, or completely become a different class, still giving the player a lot of leeway in how his character acts and believes.

So, none of these really apply to the situation. None of them are being presented like the Druid where there is no choice for the player, and a DM can supposedly feel justified in telling a player that they are making an “invalid character choice” and that “No, you’re character refuses to put on metal armor.”

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.

Is it really a mechanical power gain though? If the Druid was not meant to wear medium armor, they would not have been given medium armor. If they were only meant to have hide, would the designers not have just just said “Light armor and Hide”? It seems clear the Druid is meant to have some way to access Half-plate and Breastplate, but no guidance is given onto how that is supposed to happen.

What makes this odd, is it seems the designers gave us DMs a few bad choices. Either, we can provide alternative armors to the druids for the same price and ease that we provide metal armors of the same type, or we make this some convoluted quest, harvest, and blacksmithing. Sure, some players would be excited about this, but the party might not be excited spending two or three sessions getting the Druid better armor. And all of this seems to be a burden upon the Druid when they should be able to make the choice to go against tradition, because being able to survive the orc horde destroying the forest is more beneficial to nature than keeping his arms and body free of metal.

And mechanically, giving the druid Ankheg hide Half-plate is the exact same as them wearing metal half-plate. There is no difference between the mechanics of the two.

Characters and classes aren't completely independent from each others.

Completely independent? No, probably not.

Mostly independent? Yes, absolutely.

I’m playing a Half-Orc Fighter Samurai Soldier. Most important parts about that character? Orc and Soldier. Every decision he makes is filtered through those two aspects of his character. Fighter Samurai just determines how I kill things with the sword given to me by my human father.

Now, here soon Samurai is going to give me bonuses to dealing with nobility, and that will affect my character, he’s already the best person in the party to deal with prickly personalities (so far at least) and his military background gives him experience with Nobility, but that all was because I knew that level 7 ability would eventually come up.

An older character of mine was a Tiefling Storm Sorcerer Artisan Jeweler. Jeweler and merchant was the most important thing to that character, along with his devotion to Waukeen goddess of trade. Storm Sorcerer was connected to him, and was a big part of him, but it did not define him nearly as much.



This may get a little in the areas of absurdity, but this discussion of “will not” is really the reason I have an issue with this whole thing. Let’s craft a similarly worded example.

I craft a homebrew world, write up all these descriptions and rules and one of them is that “Humans will not enter the Cursed Woods for fear of the spirits that reside there.”

You chose to play a human over the course of your adventuring you hear about some cool item in the Cursed Wood and the party heads that way.

And as a DM I tell you your character refuses to enter the woods. You read the rules, you know humans “will not” enter the woods, you made that choice. Nothing you say matters in response, you chose one thing and know you have to have all the beliefs that come along with it. Even if your character specializes in destroying evil spirits, even if you are a level 20 monstrosity, it doesn’t matter.

That’s how I see this “will not wear metal”. I’m glad almost everyone on here agrees that if the player has a good reason in character, that it should be fine, but it just seems wrong to give the player no choice in their own beliefs.

And no, I don’t see picking the druid alone as making that choice. They could pick the druid to represent many concepts, that does not automatically include a hatred of worked metal. Like someone who was born of a nature spirit, someone who was trained in nature magic by a druid circle, but left them in disgust because they refused to act to save the outside world.

[Cybren]

You might want to check the sidebar on page 203 if you think that the PHB never says "only evil casters animate the dead frequently"

[Naanomi]

While diminished from its role in 3.X, alignment still matters in a host of mechanical ways as we recently explored

[Tetrasodium]

I’m actually shocked, I was certain there was a line in the PHB about clerics not having to choose a diety, about being able to choose a domain to worship instead of a god or goddess. I can’t find that line anymore.

However, it does allow you to pick any domain regardless of deity, as long as you can connect it to an aspect of your deity. Which, is laughably easy to do in a lot of cases.

Also, despite needing to have a deity who is the source of your power, you do not have to worship them. You don’t even have to like them. Nothing says that you have to, so playing a character who was chosen by a deity to fulfill a purpose without the character being a worshipper is legit. As is playing a character who worships and entire pantheon of deities, because nothing says you are in a monogamous relationship with your deity. So the player still has a lot of leeway in this decision.

That is because, like many of the other sections urging permissiveness on the part of the gm, it was in the dmg on page 12 & goes into quite a bit of detail

Spoiler: dmg pg12

Show

FORCES AND PHILOSOPHIES
Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities.
In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction
in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical ·, ·
power from that conviction. In other campaigns, '
impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods
by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as
druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the
force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity,
some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to
a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and
chivalry rather than a specific deity.
Forces and philosophies aren't worshiped; they aren't
beings that can hear and respond to prayers or accept
sacrifices. Devotion to a philosophy or a force isn't
necessarily exclusive of service to a deity. A person can
be devoted to the philosophy of good and offer worship
to various good deities, or revere the force of nature
and also pay homage to the gods of nature, who might
be seen as personal manifestations of an impersonal
force. In a world that includes deities with demonstrable
power (through their clerics), it's unusual for a
philosophy to deny the existence of deities, although a
common philosophical belief states that the deities are
more like mortals than they would have mortals believe.
According to such philosophies, the gods aren't truly
immortal (just very long-lived), and mortals can attain
divinity. In fact, ascending to godhood is the ultimate
goal of some philosophies. .
The power of a philosophy stems from the belief that
mortals invest in it. A philosophy that only one person
believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power
on that person.

The 500 lb gorilla in the room. The paladin is the ultimate expression of Role-playing rules. However, a close look at those oaths reveals a few things.
1) They are incredibly vague. The Oath of the Ancients in particular is so vaguely worded that you could justify almost anything. In addition, two tenants can be in conflict, and a player is either breaking his oath either way, or free to choose one tenant as more important to them than the other.
2) They encourage rewriting. Stated outright in the Oath of Devotion is that “the exact words and strictures of [the oath] vary”. Which means a player is free to talk to their DM about a different oath, altering their character and what they believe.
3) Finally, a paladin is free to break his oath. If they do so, they generally must seek absolution or forgiveness. It is only when they violate their oath and do not seek forgiveness that a player and DM can talk about making the paladin follow a different oath, become an oathbreaker, or completely become a different class, still giving the player a lot of leeway in how his character acts and believes.

Not only are those oaths vague, the dmg explicitly has significant word count devoted to those oaths with an extremely relevant example where they do not swear to a god or an ideal represented/embodied by them & in the process describe religion irrelevant arcane paladins sworn to a mortal

Spoiler: dmg287

Show

CHANGING SPELL LISTS
Modifying a class's spell list usually has little effect on
a character's power but can change the flavor of a class
significantly. In your world, paladins might not swear
their oaths to ideals, but instead swear fealty to powerful
sorcerers. To capture this story concept, you could build
a new paladin spell list with spells meant to protect
their masters, drawn from the sorcerer or wizard lists.
Suddenly, the paladin feels like a different class.
Be cautious when changing the warlock spell list.
Since warlocks regain their spell slots after a short rest,
they have the potential to use certain spells more times
in a day than other classes do.

[Chaosmancer]

You might want to check the sidebar on page 203 if you think that the PHB never says "only evil casters animate the dead frequently"

Ah, I see it there.

But my quoted section still stands. Not all necromancers are evil and they are encouraged to animate dead with their abilities.

Which section of RAW is right? Can animating undead be a neutral act as the player option suggests or is it only evil as the school description says?

[Cybren]

There was a thirty six thousand page thread a few months ago on that very topic. Everyone agreed that everyone else is a ponce that doesn't know anything, so...

[Tanarii]

Ah, I see it there.

But my quoted section still stands. Not all necromancers are evil and they are encouraged to animate dead with their abilities.

Which section of RAW is right? Can animating undead be a neutral act as the player option suggests or is it only evil as the school description says?

It's not a good act. But only evil casters do it frequently. That's compatible with a non-evil caster doing it not frequently. And of course, there is leeway in the word 'frequently'. (And like the Druid Armor rule, it's a major point of contention to anyone that believes roleplaying rules either shouldn't exist or aren't 'real' / 'hard' rules.)

On Clerics, everything in the PHB description of Clerics talks about Gods / Deities, not philosophy. A DM or setting might create a philosophy based religion for a Cleric, but that's on them / the setting. (I just reread the introductory 4 sections for the Cleric class. If I missed it I'm ordering new glasses.)

All of the things I listed* create roleplaying restrictions. They aren't all as strict as Druid armor, many of them give some to a lot of leeway within their bounds, but they are still exist as roleplaying restrictions to one degree or another. Which was my point. The system has various roleplaying restrictions built in. So claiming that "the player is in charge of what their character believes" isn't a correct statement, because it is not universally true. At least, once they've made a selection that includes a roleplaying restriction in the first place, such as their class.

(*I'll grant Alignment is a serious stretch, because Alignment behaviors are very broad, designed to work with other personality traits, and not to be a straight jacket. I personally prefer to see it as a tool, so I probably shouldn't have included it.)

[FinnS]

So the spoon that doesn’t exist is represented by our argument?

Immediately there is a spoon, because we are making an argument.

However, in the context of the Matrix, the spoon is supposed to represent that the reality they are in is a construct that does not truly exist by itself. Like say for instance, the rules of a book representing an alternate reality. And that the reality represented by the spoon can be altered by people who actually exist outside of that construct, like say, the players in the game.

Hence, there is no spoon, the game and it’s rules exist as the players and dms agree upon them, not as separate realities.

I have stated that the "spoon" represents the specific argument based on saying that the DM or the rulebook is making a choice for someone's character.
Since the choice in question (to chose to be a Druid accepting the benefits and restrictions of that choice) was actually made by the player them self, not the DM or the rulebook, then CLEARLY the base of said argument doesn't exist (the spoon).

It was a nice try though

[HolyDraconus]

Just so I'm understanding, a druid tricked into wearing a metal breastplate has, by RAW, no penalty, correct? So on that same ticket, a player could say in background fluff that they were tricked into wearing it and never made the check to disbelieve.


Seriously. We need a 5.5 at this point. I am fairly certain will should of been can just cause of previous editions but as is there's nothing outside of belief of how it should be, which goes against RAW.

[NNescio]

Just so I'm understanding, a druid tricked into wearing a metal breastplate has, by RAW, no penalty, correct? So on that same ticket, a player could say in background fluff that they were tricked into wearing it and never made the check to disbelieve.

In the same sense that a Cleric of a Lawful Good god like Tyr can go on a murderhobo rampage killing innocent people and burning down villages without any penalty by RAW, yes.

5e likely removed the hard penalty for Druids using metal armor or shields and softened it to roleplaying restriction instead to prevent Druids from losing spellcasting after being tricked or forced (like when being a prisoner) to wear metal armor, but they are still not expected to wear those. You take Druid, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is STILL part of the roleplaying restriction imposed on the class. Gaming the system in this way to avoid it is just bad faith.

As DM I would disallow this, but I would provide ample opportunity for armor made out of other materials in the game. For early levels Spiked Armor is easily purchasable, as the spikes don't necessarily have to be made out of metal.

[HolyDraconus]

It's gaming the system either way. Either you metagame wearing metal because no mechanical penalty or you get the DM to metagame you some super awesome special snowflake armor that's exactly like metal but isnt.

[Giant2005]

Just so I'm understanding, a druid tricked into wearing a metal breastplate has, by RAW, no penalty, correct? So on that same ticket, a player could say in background fluff that they were tricked into wearing it and never made the check to disbelieve.


Seriously. We need a 5.5 at this point. I am fairly certain will should of been can just cause of previous editions but as is there's nothing outside of belief of how it should be, which goes against RAW.

A 5.5 edition wouldn't help. The only thing that would help would be adding superfluous rules to the game like a 3.5 edition. We already have 3.5 for that, so I can't imagine them taking that path with a 5.5
The bottom line is that a Druid wearing metal armor should have penalties. The only reason it doesn't is because the rules light approach prohibits them wearing armor in the first place, so penalties are unnecessary due to the whole, it being impossible thing.
However if a situation arises where it does happen (like being forced into wearing it), then the DM is supposed to adjucate the situation himself - the DM is supposed to provide the penalties, just like he does for the countless other instances that the rules light system doesn't cover.

[Vaz]

So how are they proficient in armour they cannot wear?

[Citan]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Show

Had to get on my computer, phone can’t handle multi-quoting. Also have my PHB beside me.

Seems a missed a lot more of this conversation than I thought I did. I apologize for that, but I’m continuing anyways.



Rules limiting physical capabilities are different from rules limiting beliefs.

And in the Druid case, wearing metal armor is not munchkinism if you mean it in the manner of trying to go beyond the power level the designer’s intended. If druids weren’t meant to have better than a 12+dex AC, then they would have simply had light armor instead of light and medium. It is obviously intended they wear some sort of medium armor beyond hide, otherwise the rules would have been written differently.



So the spoon that doesn’t exist is represented by our argument?

Immediately there is a spoon, because we are making an argument.

However, in the context of the Matrix, the spoon is supposed to represent that the reality they are in is a construct that does not truly exist by itself. Like say for instance, the rules of a book representing an alternate reality. And that the reality represented by the spoon can be altered by people who actually exist outside of that construct, like say, the players in the game.

Hence, there is no spoon, the game and it’s rules exist as the players and dms agree upon them, not as separate realities.



Have they?



Is stated nowhere.
In fact, the closest we get is the PHB section for the necromancer wizard (whose core ability is creating undead) which states: “Not all Necromancers are evil” though it does go on to state the forces they work with are “considered taboo by many societies”

So, stating that only evil casters will use Animate dead frequently is a houserule, a player is more than free to decide that their character is a good aligned necromancer and is completely supported by the rules.


Practically do not exist in 5e. There is a section that talks about it, sure, but nothing that says a player has to pick one, follow one, and in fact it even states that “few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment”. Which tells me that they can act outside of that alignment, and there is no expectation they will not occasionally make a decision that breaks with their alignment.



Interesting choice to put this here. You obviously can’t mean specific patrons, because that is far too mutable. In fact, nothing in the Warlock class says you have to have a patron who is aware of you. GOO doesn’t, and by association you could make a Warlock who is directly tied to the Hells instead of making a deal with a Devil. Warlock’s can’t choose to defy their patrons? But part of the suggested arc of a Fiend Warlock is traveling the Nine Hells to slay their patron and reclaim their freedom. I’d label that as defying them.
So what about a Warlock patron is out of player control? They can choose who it is, the nature of the deal they struck, and how they react to the patron and their long term plans. Seems to be almost entirely a collaboration between the player and the DM on that.



I’m actually shocked, I was certain there was a line in the PHB about clerics not having to choose a diety, about being able to choose a domain to worship instead of a god or goddess. I can’t find that line anymore.

However, it does allow you to pick any domain regardless of deity, as long as you can connect it to an aspect of your deity. Which, is laughably easy to do in a lot of cases.

Also, despite needing to have a deity who is the source of your power, you do not have to worship them. You don’t even have to like them. Nothing says that you have to, so playing a character who was chosen by a deity to fulfill a purpose without the character being a worshipper is legit. As is playing a character who worships and entire pantheon of deities, because nothing says you are in a monogamous relationship with your deity. So the player still has a lot of leeway in this decision.



The 500 lb gorilla in the room. The paladin is the ultimate expression of Role-playing rules. However, a close look at those oaths reveals a few things.
1) They are incredibly vague. The Oath of the Ancients in particular is so vaguely worded that you could justify almost anything. In addition, two tenants can be in conflict, and a player is either breaking his oath either way, or free to choose one tenant as more important to them than the other.
2) They encourage rewriting. Stated outright in the Oath of Devotion is that “the exact words and strictures of [the oath] vary”. Which means a player is free to talk to their DM about a different oath, altering their character and what they believe.
3) Finally, a paladin is free to break his oath. If they do so, they generally must seek absolution or forgiveness. It is only when they violate their oath and do not seek forgiveness that a player and DM can talk about making the paladin follow a different oath, become an oathbreaker, or completely become a different class, still giving the player a lot of leeway in how his character acts and believes.

So, none of these really apply to the situation. None of them are being presented like the Druid where there is no choice for the player, and a DM can supposedly feel justified in telling a player that they are making an “invalid character choice” and that “No, you’re character refuses to put on metal armor.”




Is it really a mechanical power gain though? If the Druid was not meant to wear medium armor, they would not have been given medium armor. If they were only meant to have hide, would the designers not have just just said “Light armor and Hide”? It seems clear the Druid is meant to have some way to access Half-plate and Breastplate, but no guidance is given onto how that is supposed to happen.

What makes this odd, is it seems the designers gave us DMs a few bad choices. Either, we can provide alternative armors to the druids for the same price and ease that we provide metal armors of the same type, or we make this some convoluted quest, harvest, and blacksmithing. Sure, some players would be excited about this, but the party might not be excited spending two or three sessions getting the Druid better armor. And all of this seems to be a burden upon the Druid when they should be able to make the choice to go against tradition, because being able to survive the orc horde destroying the forest is more beneficial to nature than keeping his arms and body free of metal.

And mechanically, giving the druid Ankheg hide Half-plate is the exact same as them wearing metal half-plate. There is no difference between the mechanics of the two.



Completely independent? No, probably not.

Mostly independent? Yes, absolutely.

I’m playing a Half-Orc Fighter Samurai Soldier. Most important parts about that character? Orc and Soldier. Every decision he makes is filtered through those two aspects of his character. Fighter Samurai just determines how I kill things with the sword given to me by my human father.

Now, here soon Samurai is going to give me bonuses to dealing with nobility, and that will affect my character, he’s already the best person in the party to deal with prickly personalities (so far at least) and his military background gives him experience with Nobility, but that all was because I knew that level 7 ability would eventually come up.

An older character of mine was a Tiefling Storm Sorcerer Artisan Jeweler. Jeweler and merchant was the most important thing to that character, along with his devotion to Waukeen goddess of trade. Storm Sorcerer was connected to him, and was a big part of him, but it did not define him nearly as much.



This may get a little in the areas of absurdity, but this discussion of “will not” is really the reason I have an issue with this whole thing. Let’s craft a similarly worded example.

I craft a homebrew world, write up all these descriptions and rules and one of them is that “Humans will not enter the Cursed Woods for fear of the spirits that reside there.”

You chose to play a human over the course of your adventuring you hear about some cool item in the Cursed Wood and the party heads that way.

And as a DM I tell you your character refuses to enter the woods. You read the rules, you know humans “will not” enter the woods, you made that choice. Nothing you say matters in response, you chose one thing and know you have to have all the beliefs that come along with it. Even if your character specializes in destroying evil spirits, even if you are a level 20 monstrosity, it doesn’t matter.

That’s how I see this “will not wear metal”. I’m glad almost everyone on here agrees that if the player has a good reason in character, that it should be fine, but it just seems wrong to give the player no choice in their own beliefs.

And no, I don’t see picking the druid alone as making that choice. They could pick the druid to represent many concepts, that does not automatically include a hatred of worked metal. Like someone who was born of a nature spirit, someone who was trained in nature magic by a druid circle, but left them in disgust because they refused to act to save the outside world.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this fine, detailed, demonstrative post of why people should not be hell-bent on making this line about metal as solid and unbreakable as a truly mechanical rule with real consequences on balance (such as limiting the number of Wild Shape per short rest).

It's not a good act. But only evil casters do it frequently.

No. Sorry, but no. DEFINITELY NO.
You just cannot qualify an act of necromancy as "bad" in essence, when "bad" and "good" are so tightly related to each individual's morals and values, and varying greatly as such.

First of, all spells allowing to preserve a body or revive someone are necromancy school. Is reviving someone a "bad" thing? In the eyes of anyone convinced that life and death are the natural order of things and reviving is breaking a fundamental truth of the universe, very probably.
But for the person itself, his friends and families, that would be (usually at least ^^) a very good thing.

Then, the undeads.
Would a Necromancer using corpses of criminals to form a disposable guard to protect a village doing something "bad"?
Doing so provides security to the village, without risking anyone life.
Villagers that were before under constant threat of roaming bandits and can now live in peace will certainly not find this "bad".
Sure, they will feel awkward about having undead around, and they may be afraid that such a powerful caster may one day drop his mission or worse, turn back on them.
But they would certainly not qualify that of a "bad" act.
Even a Life Cleric (well, a guess on my part that he would abhor undead ^^) passing by may be reluctant to try and make the Wizard stop, because he would certainly see the goodness of the act. Should the Necromancer be treated as Evil, just because he used necromancy repeatedly, in spite of having good intentions?

Creating undead is, in essence, a neutral act, a simple tool.
Exactly as how Control Weather can be used in a good way (nurture plants) or an evil way (create an icy tempest that ruins all crops).

That it is considered good or bad will depend on how and why it's used, how people of the setting usually view their relationship to death itself, and so on.

The only difference between undead spells and others is that in most settings, it so happens that the manipulation of death is viewed by the people as something sacrilege, thus evil. So whatever a Necromancer will do, such people would have an instinctive reaction of fear/repulsion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual alignement of the character, which is something the player decides and DM keeps in check (as in checking the player actually roleplays in adequation). Nor is it something that has to be enforced in any campaign: a DM could perfectly well create a setting in which necromancy is actually a way of life (in a way similar to old Athen or ancient Egypt: using slaves to do the chores, except that slaves are undead).

[Knaight]

So how are they proficient in armour they cannot wear?

They have the physical conditioning needed to use it, and are used to comparable armor made of other materials. It's hardly something that needs extensive explanation, particularly given the rest of the system's propensity for new powers out of nowhere. RAW makes it clear that druids won't be using metal armor, while also making it clear that it's a trivial detail easily changed without worrying about too much.

[NNescio]

It's gaming the system either way. Either you metagame wearing metal because no mechanical penalty or you get the DM to metagame you some super awesome special snowflake armor that's exactly like metal but isnt.

DMG has stats for non-metal armor. Dragonscale, for one.

SCAG has spiked armor, which "consists of a leather coat and leggings covered with spikes that are usually made of metal". "Usually" implies that exceptions can be found (and the Druid can get easily quills or spiky carapaces from animals). This one doesn't even have to be magical.

The above two options are all RAW. Beyond that, well, historically there were ironwood in past editions, which were basically wood that was as hard as steel, and can be used to make items normally made out of metal. Druids back then also had a spell to turn normal wood into ironwood. This sort of set a precedent for the DM to houserule in ironwood armor (not necessarily the spell), probably gotten from a Druid enclave or from the fae. Oh sure, this is "special snowflake material", but special materials exist in plentiful supply in both the current and past editions, plus the DM is supposed to accommodate his players anyway. Players, however, are not supposed to make those accommodations (i.e. bend, ignore or make up rules) for themselves unilaterally.

[Vaz]

They have the physical conditioning needed to use it, and are used to comparable armor made of other materials. It's hardly something that needs extensive explanation, particularly given the rest of the system's propensity for new powers out of nowhere. RAW makes it clear that druids won't be using metal armor, while also making it clear that it's a trivial detail easily changed without worrying about too much.

But that's not what it says. They are proficient in metal armour that they will not ever wear. If you're using fluff as the justification behind them getting proficiency, then you should probably explain why they are able to have proficiency in something that they do not ever wear on pain of not being a druid.

[Unoriginal]

So how are they proficient in armour they cannot wear?

Metal armors are not different enough in term of how to use them from the non-metal armors they are trained in wearing to make the Druid unable to use them.

No. Sorry, but no. DEFINITELY NO.
You just cannot qualify an act of necromancy as "bad" in essence, when "bad" and "good" are so tightly related to each individual's morals and values, and varying greatly as such.

First of, all spells allowing to preserve a body or revive someone are necromancy school. Is reviving someone a "bad" thing? In the eyes of anyone convinced that life and death are the natural order of things and reviving is breaking a fundamental truth of the universe, very probably.
But for the person itself, his friends and families, that would be (usually at least ^^) a very good thing.

Then, the undeads.
Would a Necromancer using corpses of criminals to form a disposable guard to protect a village doing something "bad"?
Doing so provides security to the village, without risking anyone life.
Villagers that were before under constant threat of roaming bandits and can now live in peace will certainly not find this "bad".
Sure, they will feel awkward about having undead around, and they may be afraid that such a powerful caster may one day drop his mission or worse, turn back on them.
But they would certainly not qualify that of a "bad" act.
Even a Life Cleric (well, a guess on my part that he would abhor undead ^^) passing by may be reluctant to try and make the Wizard stop, because he would certainly see the goodness of the act. Should the Necromancer be treated as Evil, just because he used necromancy repeatedly, in spite of having good intentions?

Creating undead is, in essence, a neutral act, a simple tool.
Exactly as how Control Weather can be used in a good way (nurture plants) or an evil way (create an icy tempest that ruins all crops).

That it is considered good or bad will depend on how and why it's used, how people of the setting usually view their relationship to death itself, and so on.

The only difference between undead spells and others is that in most settings, it so happens that the manipulation of death is viewed by the people as something sacrilege, thus evil. So whatever a Necromancer will do, such people would have an instinctive reaction of fear/repulsion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual alignement of the character, which is something the player decides and DM keeps in check (as in checking the player actually roleplays in adequation). Nor is it something that has to be enforced in any campaign: a DM could perfectly well create a setting in which necromancy is actually a way of life (in a way similar to old Athen or ancient Egypt: using slaves to do the chores, except that slaves are undead).

Necromancy as a whole is NOT evil, as the books mention. It is just a tool, even if one many people find repulsive. But animating the dead with necromancy is different.

When you create an Undead, you create an evil being.

Skeletons and Zombies are malevolent, omnicidal spirits of negative energy that are manipulating a body, for exemple.

When you create an Undead, you're risking it to escape your control and then go kill anything in its path, out of sheer hatred for life as a whole. So, you have to be careful with them.

You CAN create an Undead without doing evil. Creating an Undead is not a good act, but it's not evil either.

But if you create a lot of Undead, knowing the risks if you lose control of them, and don't take the proper precautions (like destroying them once they're no longer needed)... well, it's pretty close to criminal negligence.

So, someone who animate the dead frequently is someone who frequently risk to unleash a mini-Zombie Apocalypse. Which means that either they're deluded like the scientist who insist the rampaging monster they've created in their lab is harmless , or they don't care about the risks they inflict on others' lives as long as it's for their benefits.

So, if we use your exemple:

Would a Necromancer using corpses of criminals to form a disposable guard to protect a village doing something "bad"?
Doing so provides security to the village, without risking anyone life.

Is wrong, because the necromancer IS risking the life of the villagers. It's like using a serial killer under mind-control magic to guard a village: sure, it may work for a while, but if there is any problem with the mind-control...

[DivisibleByZero]

So how are they proficient in armour they cannot wear?

Metal armors are not different enough in term of how to use them from the non-metal armors they are trained in wearing to make the Druid unable to use them.

Precisely.
Find a breastplate or scale mail or something made of metal? You won't wear it.
Find a breastplate or scale mail or something made from some other natural resource? Feel free to wear it without non-proficiency penalties.

[Vaz]

Precisely.
Find a breastplate or scale mail or something made of metal? You won't wear it.
Find a breastplate or scale mail or something made from some other natural resource? Feel free to wear it without non-proficiency penalties.

Why not? Because 'I' won't? Jesus christ we're going in an ever diminishing circle of intelligent discussion here that is backed up only by circle theory.

[Unoriginal]

Fun fact: after checking the PHB, it turns out that Druids are allowed to wear Studded Leather.

Why not? Because 'I' won't? Jesus christ we're going in an ever diminishing circle of intelligent discussion here that is backed up only by circle theory.

Because Druids don't wear metal armors as part of their faith, unless the DM decides to allow otherwise. Same way how Druids can use mistletoe to cast spell, or how they learn Druidic.

[Tanarii]

Since the choice in question (to chose to be a Druid accepting the benefits and restrictions of that choice) was actually made by the player them self, not the DM or the rulebook, then CLEARLY the base of said argument doesn't exist (the spoon).

Yup. Even in my "roleplaying restrictions on player choice exist" point I was making, I had to qualify it. Because the player is absolutely still making a choice when they select a class that has built in roleplaying restrictions.

No. Sorry, but no. DEFINITELY NO.

PHB p203. Creating the undead through necromancy spells is not a good act, and only evil casters do it frequently. I paraphrased it verbatim. The rest of your post is based on incorrect information (Edit:) your personal opinion on how you want it to work in your games, differently from what the PHB has to say about it. My comment is accurate insofar as the RAW goes.

[Edgerunner]

Just my 2 cents.

The Druid is given access to medium armor Specifically so they have access to Hide Armor.
IMO that is where much of the issue comes from, they have access to Metal Armor in the Medium area but are only allowed to wear the Hide.

[Tanarii]

Fun fact: after checking the PHB, it turns out that Druids are allowed to wear Studded Leather.

Really? After I checked it, it was pretty clear to me they can't, despite what the SA link has to say about it. It includes metal in the form of close-set rivets or spikes.
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.

(I'm assuming you either found a rule somewhere else, or are contesting the idea that the close-set rivets or spikes must be metal. If you're thinking the latter ... well, I guess we just have a different opinion on that.)

Just my 2 cents.

The Druid is given access to medium armor Specifically so they have access to Hide Armor.
IMO that is where much of the issue comes from, they have access to Metal Armor in the Medium area but are only allowed to wear the Hide.

That's my thought too. Because otherwise IMO they're limited to Leather, so they needed a AC 12 option.

(Edit: moved my two comments on armor into a single post.)

[Unoriginal]

Just my 2 cents.

The Druid is given access to medium armor Specifically so they have access to Hide Armor.
IMO that is where much of the issue comes from, they have access to Metal Armor in the Medium area but are only allowed to wear the Hide.

They have access to all non-metal medium armor, which in the PHB is only Hide.

(I'm assuming you either found a rule somewhere else, or are contesting the idea that the close-set rivets or spikes must be metal. If you're thinking the latter ... well, I guess we just have a different opinion on that.)

Well, nothing is saying or implying that those rivets or spikes must be metal.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why not? Because 'I' won't? Jesus christ we're going in an ever diminishing circle of intelligent discussion here that is backed up only by circle theory.

Because that's what the rules state.
The ever diminishing circle of intelligent discussion was created by people claiming that the rules don't apply to them because reasons.

[Tanarii]

Well, nothing is saying or implying that those rivets or spikes must be metal.

Except for the words "rivet" and "spikes", I completely agree.

Like I said, clearly we have a different opinion on that.

Edit: I just looked, and interestingly & technically, Ring Mail doesn't specify that the rings are "metal" either. In other words, using your logic (which is NOT meant sarcastically) a Druid could take Heavy Armor proficiency and wear Ringmail. All the other Medium and Heavy armors have the word "metal" in them.

[Unoriginal]

Except for the words "rivet" and "spikes", I completely agree.

Like I said, clearly we have a different opinion on that.

I suppose so. But hard to argue it's not possible to make spikes out of things that are not metal

[Naanomi]

Because that's what the rules state.
The ever diminishing circle of intelligent discussion was created by people claiming that the rules don't apply to them because reasons.

I agree largely. The rule is stupid and shouldn't have existed? A discussion can be had around that. There are several reasonable house rules (some with in-game president) to address the 'problem'? A discussion can be bad around that. The rule doesn't really exist and you are a bad GM for trying to impose your will on players? Not much room for meaningful discussion.