Land Druid and it's AC problems

[DivisibleByZero]

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.

Absolutely agree.
Furthermore, regarding the blurb in the DMG about the DM being amicable to allow things he might otherwise not allow: That is being read by some posters as giving them carte blanche to decide which rules they are and are not going to follow. It doesn't exist to give carte blance to players. It exists to give carte blanche to DMs about which rules his table will and will not follow.

Hey, look at that. The word "will" was use there. Just like in the Druids' armor entry.

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

The armor itself is made of leather. The studs are an accessory/addition. If you're going to rule that studded is made of metal, then you should go ahead an ban druids from wearing any armor at all, because all armor has metal in the form of clasps or buckles or rivets/eyelets for lacing.

[Unoriginal]

The armor itself is made of leather. The studs are an accessory/addition. If you're going to rule that studded is made of metal, then you should go ahead an ban druids from wearing any armor at all, because all armor has metal in the form of clasps or buckles or rivets/eyelets for lacing.

As I said, the studded part doesn't even need to be made of metal.

So yeah, a Druid can wear it, no matter what.

[DivisibleByZero]

As I said, the studded part doesn't even need to be made of metal.

So yeah, a Druid can wear it, no matter what.

Yep. It's made of leather.

[Naanomi]

Absolutely agree.
Furthermore, regarding the blurb in the DMG about the DM being amicable to allow things he might otherwise not allow: That is being read by some posters as giving them carte blanche to decide which rules they are and are not going to follow. It doesn't exist to give carte blance to players. It exists to give carte blanche to DMs about which rules his table will and will not follow.

Hey, look at that. The word "will" was use there. Just like in the Druids' armor entry.


The armor itself is made of leather. The studs are an accessory/addition. If you're going to rule that studded is made of metal, then you should go ahead an ban druids from wearing any armor at all, because all armor has metal in the form of clasps or buckles or rivets/eyelets for lacing.

I'm sure there are historic armors with no metal components, but yeah studded leather is fine on many fronts

[Tetrasodium]

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.

enough of this nonsense because it quite is a ridiculously irrelevant point: dmg18" Kaius, the vampire king of
Karrnath, has a formidable army of living and undead soldiers under his command." makes eberron & this aspect of it especially good for destroying this tangent on "frequent" use of animate dead. vampire LE King Kaius of Karrnath with armies of undead?... all about establishing & keeping world peace NG Queen Aurala of Aundair?... She's all about assasinations, subterfuge, & politicking with the goal of starting another major war so she can swoop in at the right moment and seize the position of world ruler... If I'm not mistaken, there is a ?G elf queen all about genocide too & if not, the LG church of the silver flame quite literally attempted & almost succeeded at it in thew past.... and that was true since back in 3.5 when alignment restrictions were even more strict than 5th edition's wishy washy "meh whatever" vague interpretation of the alignments. This irrelivance on good vrs evil is so true that even AL allows evil characters & the detect/protection from alignment type spells were converted to replace alignment with aberrations.

Dear OP, while a bunch of purists are fighting over how using animate dead "often" is an evil act that only evil characters will do "often"... Remember that it doesn't matter because the whole strict good/evil thing is a thing that's been on it's way out for a couple versions now & is even less relevant in 5th than it was when all of those above eberron stuff started. Tell your gm your character's justification for wearing the remaining 4 of the 5 medium armors, declare that the organic content in it is high enough to not offend your faith, or whatever dismissal of this bit of flufff fits your character. If the gm dismisses you out of hand or insists on punishing you by saying that nonmetal options exist but are harder to find & that most magic armor will be denied to you for being metal (No I'm not making things up, someone actually said that in #217 is if it was completely reasonable & benevolent stance) I'd suggest finding a different GM. It's a game, you should all be having fun together & a gm like that clearly is not even pretending to act as an impartial arbiter of the rules. Best of luck either way

[Unoriginal]

It's a game, you should all be having fun together & a gm like that clearly is not even pretending to act as an impartial arbiter of the rules. Best of luck either way

So you're saying that you can only be an impartial arbiter of the rules if you rule in favor of the player?

[DivisibleByZero]

So you're saying that you can only be an impartial arbiter of the rules if you rule in favor of the player?

Unfortunately it has become a common complaint by players that any DM who ever says the word No for any reason is terrible. They cry about player agency and all sorts of garbage, and use the word Punish with little regard for whether it's actually an appropriate word to use in that circumstance.
This behavior has become commonplace.

[Cybren]

Unfortunately it has become a common complaint by players that any DM who ever says the word No for any reason is terrible. They cry about player agency and all sorts of garbage, and use the word Punish with little regard for whether it's actually an appropriate word to use in that circumstance.
This behavior has become commonplace.

More charitably I would say that many D&D players tend to take as permissive a reading of the rules as possible when there is ambiguity, just as many DMs instinctively take a restrictive interpretation of rules, though I find it more common that a DM takes a permissive reading than a player a restrictive one.

[DivisibleByZero]

More charitably I would say that many D&D players tend to take as permissive a reading of the rules as possible when there is ambiguity, just as many DMs instinctively take a restrictive interpretation of rules, though I find it more common that a DM takes a permissive reading than a player a restrictive one.

Even when there is zero ambiguity.
Case in point: this entire thread.
Players claiming that any DM who does not allow metal armor on a druid is a badDM, even though the rules clearly state that they will not wear it.
DMs claiming that they'd be willing to work out non-metal solutions, or possibly allow metal options on a case by case basis depending on character concept.
Players still claiming that any DM who does not allow metal armor on a druid is a badDM, even though the rules clearly state they will not wear it.

[MadBear]

I think at this point it'd be fair to say that many people are all talking past eachother at this point.

From what I can gather there are a few points where disagreements occur that we could potentially look at.

the first category that I see revolves around
(druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

There are some who think,
a. this is a rule that must be followed
b. this is a recommendation that not need be followed by players

This disagreement alone should point out that it's entirely reasonable that you should always ask your DM before assuming you can wear metal, since there is a fair argument on both sides.

Unfortunately, from there we seem to have also broken down into a further 2 arguments.

c. You're a bad DM if you think the rule must be followed
d. You're wrong if you think the rule must be followed

Now, C is a distraction and that entire argument can be discarded on the principle that whether or not following a rule that you think exists makes you a bad DM has no bearing on the conversation.

D, needs to be demonstrated, and there has yet to be a single demonstration that the rule must be read 100% one way or another.

Which leads us back to A & B.

Throw into the mix, that even those who read it as A, have said repeatedly, that they might allow it depending on the game they're running and their players desires, and this whole conversation is pointless.

[Naanomi]

If the gm dismisses you out of hand or insists on punishing you by saying that nonmetal options exist but are harder to find & that most magic armor will be denied to you for being metal (No I'm not making things up, someone actually said that in #217 is if it was completely reasonable & benevolent stance) I'd suggest finding a different GM.y

I feel it is rather reasonable. My campaign isn't high magic, and I am very glad to move away from the 3e/4e 'every item slot must be filled' mentality for magic equipment; no one is 'due' any magic equipment because it isn't a system assumption anymore. My current party (level 15ish) has found maybe three magical medium armors total, and all three were metal... not because I was plotting against the party druid, but because it made sense where they found them and who owned them before. I'll gladly provide access if you want to work it out with me, but not as a default state... my setting consistency is at least as important as your unique character concept; just like I'll turn down a character who says their noble character is king of the necromancer kingdom (there isn't such a place on the map, I can work something out perhaps but don't assume you can plunk one down in the middle of the map and call it good); or that their tiefling is a beloved local scamp (I will tell you before you start that social prejudice against all planar races is enormous in my setting).

Non-metal armor would be *exotic* in most settings. It isn't to say it is non-existent, as I could easily say as a GM, but rather that it isn't the norm. Metal armor is the norm for a reason, if for nothing else than for classical aesthetics... anything else is exotic enough to incur rarity and extra cost (though money doesn't matter much in most 5e games outside of low level play). The local blacksmith of the pseudo-medieval village doesn't know how to make or repair your stone plate, that is setting consistency not 'punishing' anyone or 'denying' you something you are due. It is, to me, an equivalent of asking for an exotic asian weapon or firearm in most settings... sure they may exist, sure your character can use one, I'll even be super flexible about your character starting with one if you can afford it (your background pre-game is flexible)... but don't expect every dragon's horde to have a +1 Pistol or flaming Kusari-gama. This of course varies per setting... in Darksun, for example, *metal* is the exotic item that I wouldn't expect anyone to have or no how to work in most places; and some places every corner tinker knows how to put together a rifle; but this isn't the standard assumption and not the state in most published campaigns at the very least.

[Cybren]

To be fair, a village blacksmith probably doesn't have much armorsmithing experience, they'd mostly be used to shoeing horses and making cookpots.

[Naanomi]

To be fair, a village blacksmith probably doesn't have much armorsmithing experience, they'd mostly be used to shoeing horses and making cookpots.

Also very fair, how about 'your standard armorsmith at the local keep still doesn't know how to make or repair stone armor in most settings'

[Tetrasodium]

My current party (level 15ish) has found maybe three magical medium armors total, and all three were metal... not because I was plotting against the party druid, but because it made sense where they found them and who owned them before.

Non-metal armor would be *exotic* in most settings. It isn't to say it is non-existent, as I could easily say as a GM, but rather that it isn't the norm. Metal armor is the norm for a reason, if for nothing else than for classical aesthetics... anything else is exotic enough to incur rarity and extra cost (though money doesn't matter much in most 5e games outside of low level play). The local blacksmith of the pseudo-medieval village doesn't know how to make or repair your stone plate, that is setting consistency not 'punishing' anyone or 'denying' you something you are due. It is, to me, an equivalent of asking for an exotic asian weapon or firearm in most settings... sure they may exist, sure your character can use one, I'll even be super flexible about your character starting with one if you can afford it (your background pre-game is flexible)... but don't expect every dragon's horde to have a +1 Pistol or flaming Kusari-gama. This of course varies per setting... in Darksun, for example, *metal* is the exotic item that I wouldn't expect anyone to have or no how to work in most places; and some places every corner tinker knows how to put together a rifle; but this isn't the standard assumption and not the state in most published campaigns at the very least.

Also very fair, how about 'your standard armorsmith at the local keep still doesn't know how to make or repair stone armor in most settings'

With you as the person who originally made the benevolent suggestion I was referring & linked to, I'm really glad that you specifically decided to take issue with me describing most places not accessable & most magic armor metal by default as "does not exist" and "magic armor denied to you" & amazed at the level of willful blindness the objection displays.

Since you mention darksun water in darksun is "less common". It's not that water in darksun is nonexistent, it's just you will have an extreme hardship in finding it except unlike the druid metal armor thing it applies to everyone so the GM needs to be reasonably impartial there and honest about things like "Joe specifically is almost never going to see it" is no different at all from "it does not exist for Joe". If you are placing a high barrier in place for one class and nothing for every other class as you described, it's the opposite of impartial.

As you yourself just pointed out while taking issue with "less common == denied access", it is indeed effectively the same because anyone who is going to take the time to say that it is "less common" is almost certainly just ignoring the fact that "less" and "effectively nonexistent" are effectively the same; but unlike darksun water issues, applies only to druids.

You can't take issue to "most magic armor will be denied to you" while rattling off an example & laundry list of laundry list of reasons why it is true.

With that said & so amazingly demonstrated by the very person who made the original suggestion... Dear OP as I said in my last post in different words... if the GM whips it out & starts to spray yellow water on your druid's justifications, Don't sit quietly no matter how strongly he or she tries to explain all the reasons why it's just rain.. I'd suggest finding a different gm as advised last time for the reasons advised last time because this is a subject where many GM's maintain years of lying to themselves about that particular variant of rain.

[Naanomi]

As you yourself just pointed out while taking issue with "less common == denied access", it is indeed effectively the same because anyone who is going to take the time to say that it is "less common" is almost certainly just ignoring the fact that "less" and "effectively nonexistent" are effectively the same; but unlike darksun water issues, applies only to druids.

Actually I said *metal* is less common in Darksun, I wasn't talking about water. Most armor (and weapons) are made of shells, bones, etc in that setting. If there was a class feature mentioning metal (a forge priest of some kind? I'm not sure), the ability would be more challenging to access than in other settings. Same with a gunslinger in forgotten realms... one country (Lantan) has guns, but they are not widely spread across the Sword Coast or elsewhere where most adventuring takes place.

However, I disagree that 'less' and 'effectively nonexistent' are the same... there is a wide array of variability between 'every street-corner has it' and 'getting one is an adventure by itself' and 'it doesn't exist in this setting'. I'm frankly confused by the idea that saying 'katana are used on a entirely different continent, you can make a katana master but don't expect to find them around everywhere' is equivalent of saying 'haha, I am spitting on your katana master idea because I'm an evil and unfun game master muaahahah!'.

[Unoriginal]

If a player in Dark Sun wants their Paladin to wear metal full plate, a DM would have to ask "where does your character find something so rare/ find the money for something so rare?"

[MadBear]

Actually I said *metal* is less common in Darksun, I wasn't talking about water. Most armor (and weapons) are made of shells, bones, etc in that setting. If there was a class feature mentioning metal (a forge priest of some kind? I'm not sure), the ability would be more challenging to access than in other settings. Same with a gunslinger in forgotten realms... one country (Lantan) has guns, but they are not widely spread across the Sword Coast or elsewhere where most adventuring takes place.

You're being too generous. He switched it to water, because he just wanted the excuse to make the point that anyone who doesn't do it the way he say is essentially urinating on his players. Which is both a strawman of peoples points, and a juvenile way of making his point.

[Xetheral]

Out of curiosity, for those who favor the absolute interpretation of "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", do you interpret "[t]o a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness" (PHB 46) as similarly ironclad? Why or why not?

[DivisibleByZero]

Out of curiosity, for those who favor the absolute interpretation of "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", do you interpret "[t]o a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness" (PHB 46) as similarly ironclad? Why or why not?

First, the flavor text within race and class descriptions is just that. Flavor text. It explains what or how the typical and average of that sect might think/believe/act. Players have agency regarding flavor text.
Armor proficiencies are not flavor text. Armor proficiencies are rules.
There can be deviations, sure. But those need to be discussed with your DM. The player has no agency regarding their weapon and armor proficiencies unless the DM grants them said agency.
So a druid will not wear metal armor unless your DM says that it's okay for him to do so. Anyone that has a problem with this knew about this restriction before they chose to play a druid, and they chose to play a druid anyway.

[Naanomi]

Out of curiosity, for those who favor the absolute interpretation of "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", do you interpret "[t]o a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness" (PHB 46) as similarly ironclad? Why or why not?

I do not.
~First, it is in the 'narrative' portion of the Barbarian class features, as opposed the the weapon and armor restrictions (which are in the proficiency section);
~Secondly, none of the language in the barbarian section really indicates any game terms to imply rules, whereas armor and shields are both mechanical game concepts that are addressable from a rules perspective

And less absolutely, but still give me an idea of the intent:
~Thirdly, historical precedent of druid armor use and barbarian class features shows more variability in the later than the former in DnD (and 5th ed is intentionally 'historical' in many ways)
~Fourth, the image of a barbarian covers a lot of ground... Conan, the 'archetypical' Barbarian wears armor on occasion, and many examples in novels and the like of Barbarian characters include blacksmithing and the like. Conversely, very few (not none, but few) 'druid' type characters in fiction are shown wearing armor at all, let alone non-metal armor. Even the video games that call on this idea (like the druid/shaman from WoW and the like) heavily tend to hides and wood in their 'iconic imagery' than metal (though of course do have more flexibility in their 'random pieces of armor' appearance)

[Xetheral]

I do not.
~First, it is in the 'narrative' portion of the Barbarian class features, as opposed the the weapon and armor restrictions (which are in the proficiency section);
~Secondly, none of the language in the barbarian section really indicates any game terms to imply rules, whereas armor and shields are both mechanical game concepts that are addressable from a rules perspective

And less absolutely, but still give me an idea of the intent:
~Thirdly, historical precedent of druid armor use and barbarian class features shows more variability in the later than the former in DnD (and 5th ed is intentionally 'historical' in many ways)
~Fourth, the image of a barbarian covers a lot of ground... Conan, the 'archetypical' Barbarian wears armor on occasion, and many examples in novels and the like of Barbarian characters include blacksmithing and the like. Conversely, very few (not none, but few) 'druid' type characters in fiction are shown wearing armor at all, let alone non-metal armor. Even the video games that call on this idea (like the druid/shaman from WoW and the like) heavily tend to hides and wood in their 'iconic imagery' than metal (though of course do have more flexibility in their 'random pieces of armor' appearance)

First, the flavor text within race and class descriptions is just that. Flavor text. It explains what or how the typical and average of that sect might think/believe/act. Players have agency regarding flavor text.
Armor proficiencies are not flavor text. Armor proficiencies are rules.
There can be deviations, sure. But those need to be discussed with your DM. The player has no agency regarding their weapon and armor proficiencies unless the DM grants them said agency.
So a druid will not wear metal armor unless your DM says that it's okay for him to do so. Anyone that has a problem with this knew about this restriction before they chose to play a druid, and they chose to play a druid anyway.

Going a step further, let's suppose that, under Armor Proficiency in the Barbarian entry, the text (after listing proficiencies) read: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness and so they will not wear armor made of worked metal." Would you then interpret all Barbarians as being required by the rules to see civilization as no virtue? Or would that part still be flavor text despite its inclusion in the rules text?

[Cybren]

Going a step further, let's suppose that, under Armor Proficiency in the Barbarian entry, the text (after listing proficiencies) read: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness and so they will not wear armor made of worked metal." Would you then interpret all Barbarians as being required by the rules to see civilization as no virtue? Or would that part still be flavor text despite its inclusion in the rules text?

Those aren't analogous. Because it's not in the proficiency section, and by giving reasoning allows for more fluidity in breaking that reasoning. The druid entry just says "druids will not wear armor or shields made from metal"

[Tetrasodium]

I do not.
~First, it is in the 'narrative' portion of the Barbarian class features, as opposed the the weapon and armor restrictions (which are in the proficiency section);
~Secondly, none of the language in the barbarian section really indicates any game terms to imply rules, whereas armor and shields are both mechanical game concepts that are addressable from a rules perspective

And less absolutely, but still give me an idea of the intent:
~Thirdly, historical precedent of druid armor use and barbarian class features shows more variability in the later than the former in DnD (and 5th ed is intentionally 'historical' in many ways)
~Fourth, the image of a barbarian covers a lot of ground... Conan, the 'archetypical' Barbarian wears armor on occasion, and many examples in novels and the like of Barbarian characters include blacksmithing and the like. Conversely, very few (not none, but few) 'druid' type characters in fiction are shown wearing armor at all, let alone non-metal armor. Even the video games that call on this idea (like the druid/shaman from WoW and the like) heavily tend to hides and wood in their 'iconic imagery' than metal (though of course do have more flexibility in their 'random pieces of armor' appearance)

You don't get to ironclad no metal armor for druids & cite history to dismiss the barbarian civilization bit of fluff because the Cú Chulainn's warp spasm is the very embodiment of a barbarian's rage, predates d&d as well as conan by a couple thousand years, and is from the same Celtic culture druids were originally badly sourced from despite slow improvements to shed the original flower child idea over the editions.

if "intentionally historical" dismisses one, it dismisses both on account of being the same ancient culture & both are at odds with celtic culture. They didn't wear metal armor when the romans came to wipe them out for the same reason basically nobody else conqured by the romans did, they lacked the metalurgy that the roman armies had. Celtic gods<>fomorians are basically all aspects of civilization<>the dark half living(ie undead) backslide away from civilization.

[Tanarii]

The armor itself is made of leather. The studs are an accessory/addition. If you're going to rule that studded is made of metal, then you should go ahead an ban druids from wearing any armor at all, because all armor has metal in the form of clasps or buckles or rivets/eyelets for lacing.

I disagree. The rivets are integral to studded leather. Without it, it's not even the equivalent of bad leather, since it's not boiled / hardened leather. It absolutely is made of both the leather and the metal rivets.

Uh ... IMO. hahahaha

More charitably I would say that many D&D players tend to take as permissive a reading of the rules as possible when there is ambiguity, just as many DMs instinctively take a restrictive interpretation of rules, though I find it more common that a DM takes a permissive reading than a player a restrictive one.

Checks out. I'm usually far more restrictive as a player than any other player and many DMs. Because I DM far more than I play.

But also, these things are not equal within a given game. When a player is permissive, he can only be as permissive as the DM is restrictive, and it generally only affects their own character. When a DM is permissive, each player can be up to that permissive, or more restrictive, per their own individual choice.

[Xetheral]

Those aren't analogous. Because it's not in the proficiency section, and by giving reasoning allows for more fluidity in breaking that reasoning. The druid entry just says "druids will not wear armor or shields made from metal"

I entirely agree that they're not analogous--I'm not trying to draw an analogy. :) Instead I'm looking to see whether those who feel that the druid prohibition is absolute interpret my hypothetical as all-rules, due to its location, or instead as co-mingled rules and flavor text, due to its content.

Ultimately I'm trying to explore where other posters feel the boundary is between flavor text and rules text, since I think differing opinions on the location of that boundary underlie much of the disagreememt in this thread.

[Naanomi]

You don't get to ironclad no metal armor for druids & cite history to dismiss the barbarian civilization bit of fluff because the Cú Chulainn's warp spasm is the very embodiment of a barbarian's rage, predates d&d as well as conan by a couple thousand years, and is from the same Celtic culture druids were originally badly sourced from despite slow improvements to shed the original flower child idea over the editions.

if "intentionally historical" dismisses one, it dismisses both on account of being the same ancient culture & both are at odds with celtic culture. They didn't wear metal armor when the romans came to wipe them out for the same reason basically nobody else conqured by the romans did, they lacked the metalurgy that the roman armies had. Celtic gods<>fomorians are basically all aspects of civilization<>the dark half living(ie undead) backslide away from civilization.

Sorry I was unclear, I meant 'historical in the context of classical medieval fantasy settings that most DnD settings draw from; particularly the history of DnD itself', not necessarily the mythology that inspired it.

[DivisibleByZero]

You don't get to ironclad no metal armor for druids & cite history to dismiss the barbarian civilization bit of fluff because

But we absolutely do get to ironclad (with room for DM approved exceptions) no metal armor for druids, and handwave the barbarian civilization fluff, because the former is Rules talk included in proficiencies, while the latter is fluff included in flavor text.

One is flavor. One is rules.
The rules may be predicated upon flavor, but they are rules none the less.

[Unoriginal]

Going a step further, let's suppose that, under Armor Proficiency in the Barbarian entry, the text (after listing proficiencies) read: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness and so they will not wear armor made of worked metal." Would you then interpret all Barbarians as being required by the rules to see civilization as no virtue? Or would that part still be flavor text despite its inclusion in the rules text?

There is no reason for this text to be here. However, if it was written "Barbarians will not wear metal armors", then I'd interpret it as the Barbarian being unwilling to wear armor, and if the rest of the entry justified it by saying "Barbarian think that wearing metal armor is a sign of civilisation and of weakness, and so refuse to wear it", then I'd accept that the default Barbarian being like this, with the DM being able to change it as they please if they have a reason to.



I've seen at least one RPG where Barbarians couldn't wear armor for this very reason.

Conan, the 'archetypical' Barbarian wears armor on occasion, and many examples in novels and the like of Barbarian characters include blacksmithing and the like.

Actually Conan would be a Fighter with a few levels in Rogue, in D&D term. He also wore armor whenever he could.

[ad_hoc]

I entirely agree that they're not analogous--I'm not trying to draw an analogy. :) Instead I'm looking to see whether those who feel that the druid prohibition is absolute interpret my hypothetical as all-rules, due to its location, or instead as co-mingled rules and flavor text, due to its content.

Ultimately I'm trying to explore where other posters feel the boundary is between flavor text and rules text, since I think differing opinions on the location of that boundary underlie much of the disagreememt in this thread.

You are begging the question here. Flavour text is rules text. I can't choose a boundary because such a thing doesn't exist.

It says that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. It doesn't say Barbarians will not enter buildings or be surrounded by crowds.

Here's an example: Let's say a player wants to make a Barbarian and have a personality trait: At peace when surrounded by crowds.

I would say no. That's clearly not a Barbarian.

If another group houserules Barbarians to not be like that will I tell them they're playing D&D wrong? No.

[tkuremento]

I disagree. The rivets are integral to studded leather. Without it, it's not even the equivalent of bad leather, since it's not boiled / hardened leather. It absolutely is made of both the leather and the metal rivets.

Bone studs? I'm not saying studded leather by default is non-metal, that is a tough one. Of course this is probably just me thinking of how you could use bone instead of metal for studded leather in Pathfinder, and 5e is DEF not Pathfinder

Checks out. I'm usually far more restrictive as a player than any other player and many DMs. Because I DM far more than I play.

But also, these things are not equal within a given game. When a player is permissive, he can only be as permissive as the DM is restrictive, and it generally only affects their own character. When a DM is permissive, each player can be up to that permissive, or more restrictive, per their own individual choice.

I like to make cool concepts but if I can't find the means in the book I don't try to bend stuff. And I've never been a DM. Of I could get closer to what I wanted now with Inquisitive Rogue/EK, which is dagger throwing with sneak attack but without having to have a billion daggers. I didn't read Inquisitive that well before I guess.

Regardless, I'd say studded leather is probably going to be much more likely to be allowed for druid than other armors because of the ratio of the composition. However it is still a technical gray-area I suppose. Though without studded leather this means that the only way for druid to get more than 11 ac + dex mod short of racial or multiclassing IS hide, which then brings the point of WHY medium armor would be included at all. If studded leather is a no-no then that means hide makes sense, and thus the medium armor makes sense.