Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Naanomi]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised that there are no rules for a Warlock losing class features. Given that your powers are based on a pact with a powerful being, I'd have thought there would mechanical consequences if you refuse to serve that being or actively work against it.

Clerics as well, though in both cases it probably depends a bit on the specifics of the character and the setting. I can imagine a warlock's pact being power that 'can't be taken back', so that a jilted patron has to actively work against their Warlock rather than just 'cut off the juice'. Overall, with the very slight exception of Paladin, the idea of a 'fallen' class has seemed to been phased out

Yeah, I think saying something like 'most druids will not wear metal armour' or 'druid orders do not permit their members to wear metal armour' would have solved a lot of issues. You still have the vast majority of druids eschewing metal armour, but you also have the possibility of exceptions.

The struggle that creates, to me, is that *every* PC would be 'the exception' because of gamist concerns (I mean, do you ever see a fighter in Chain Mail for 'rp reasons'?). I would have liked some minor, but annoying, mechanical effects myself (takes an extra use of wildshape? Difficulty with concentration checks?). I could envision a subclass, or even background (heretic: background benefit: can ignore strictures of religions etc) that removes the restriction but still keeps it 'rare' in some way

What I got in response could be summed up as 'Previous editions did it.'

Well... the more relevant point for me is: 'campaign settings were built with the assumptions and aesthetics of previous editions, so to keep consistency in those settings I maintain it' much more than 'old edition fluff applies universally to new editions'

[Dr. Cliché]

if they wrote that, what would happen is every druid that actually gets played will wear metal armor. It would be meaningless.

Yep, if they changed it to a fluff "most Druids don't wear metal armour" every single Druid character would end up being the super special exception to the rule.

Yep. And then the DM can respond by pointing the player to the fluff that says why druids refuse to wear metal.

Oh, wait, there isn't any.

If you want most players to choose fluff over optimisation, then it would help if the fluff actually existed in the first place.

If they really want most/all druids to abstain from wearing metal armour, then perhaps they should add a reason. Because what we have at the moment is action without purpose.

The struggle that creates, to me, is that *every* PC would be 'the exception' because of gamist concerns (I mean, do you ever see a fighter in Chain Mail for 'rp reasons'?). I would have liked some minor, but annoying, mechanical effects myself (takes an extra use of wildshape? Difficulty with concentration checks?). I could envision a subclass, or even background (heretic: background benefit: can ignore strictures of religions etc) that removes the restriction but still keeps it 'rare' in some way

As I said before, I'd have much preferred an actual mechanical consequence to wearing metal armour (whether impeding wild shape in some way or hindering spellcasting or somesuch). This would both provide a solid reason for most druids to not wear armour, whilst still keeping the actual choice in the hands of the player.

Well... the more relevant point for me is: 'campaign settings were built with the assumptions and aesthetics of previous editions, so to keep consistency in those settings I maintain it' much more than 'old edition fluff applies universally to new editions'

But that ceases to work when the actual mechanics of the class change drastically. In 3.5, a druid who wore metal armour lost all his powers for the duration and for an additional 24hrs thereafter. In 5e, a druid who wears metal armour suffers no penalties whatsoever . . . yet every druid, no matter their background, will always refuse to wear metal armour under every conceivable circumstance. So, at best, we have a situation where the mechanics have split off from the fluff they're supposed to be representing.

At the very least, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the current edition to supply some fluff to explain why druids will not wear metal, in spite of their being no drawback to them doing so.

And that's before we even get into how much metal a druid can willingly use or even wear, so long as it doesn't improve his AC.

Something else to consider is that, unlike in 3.5, we have druids that can be tied to the underdark. Would they really see metal as unnatural? It seems rather odd that they would eschew wearing metals harvested from their own land, and would instead prefer using the skin of a creature that only exists outside of their domain.

[Cybren]

It's not fluff. It's a specific instruction in the proficiency section of the druid class that says they will not wear armor with a certain quality (metal).

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not fluff. It's a specific instruction in the proficiency section of the druid class that says they will not wear armor with a certain quality (metal).

I didn't say it was fluff, nor have I ever.

What I said was that there is no reason given for it - neither in the Druid's fluff, nor in the actual mechanics.

It is a rigidly-enforced taboo that apparently unifies druids of every circle, race and background (even the underground ones who would surely see metal as natural), and yet it's not given so much as a single line of explanation.

[Cybren]

I didn't say it was fluff, nor have I ever.

What I said was that there is no reason given for it - neither in the Druid's fluff, nor in the actual mechanics.

It is a rigidly-enforced taboo that apparently unifies druids of every circle, race and background (even the underground ones who would surely see metal as natural), and yet it's not given so much as a single line of explanation.

There's no reason given why a warlock has a specific patron or a paladin's oath has specific tenets. I don't see how this is a flaw.

[War_lord]

Large chunks of unrefined ore are natural. Forged armour plates aren't. Makes perfect sense to me that the class of nature priests would have a taboo against faithlessly protecting yourself with man's creation instead of nature's.

[Dr. Cliché]

There's no reason given why a warlock has a specific patron

I don't understand what you mean here. I thought the whole point of warlocks was that they gained their powers by making a pact with a patron. In some circumstances, it can be a pretty vague concept.

or a paladin's oath has specific tenets.

Because swearing an oath to do nothing would be rather odd?

Also, in both of these examples, the choice resides with the player (or his character, depending on how you look at it). The warlock gets to decide which patron to make a pact with, and (if applicable) can even name a specific individual.

The paladin gets to choose which oath (and resulting tenets) best suit him. Also, a paladin can break his oath and then atone later. A Druid is given no such option.

A druid gets no choice whatsoever. Land, Moon, Beast, it's all irrelevant. it doesn't matter if they grey up under a mountain or in a forest - they always refuse to wear metal armour.

Large chunks of unrefined ore are natural. Forged armour plates aren't. Makes perfect sense to me that the class of nature priests would have a taboo against faithlessly protecting yourself with man's creation instead of nature's.

But by the same logic, cow-hide is only natural on the cow. Surely working it into clothes and such is just as unnatural and 'man's creation' as working ore into armour?

Also, if they hate worked metal, why do they not object to using metal weapons/tools or wearing jewellery made from worked metal?


EDIT: As a question, how would you guys feel if that line was removed, and instead Druids were only give proficiency in light armour and hide?

[MadBear]

I didn't say it was fluff, nor have I ever.

What I said was that there is no reason given for it - neither in the Druid's fluff, nor in the actual mechanics.

It is a rigidly-enforced taboo that apparently unifies druids of every circle, race and background (even the underground ones who would surely see metal as natural), and yet it's not given so much as a single line of explanation.

I think you make a good point.

My best guess (since I can't read the designers minds) is that it's a combination of a few things.

1. It's part of a relic of D&D and you can get the info there (not necessarily a good reason, but it's there nonetheless)

2. 5e tries to put the power back in the DM's hands and so will write some sections vaguely so that the DM can make calls at their table.

3. If you had a solid rule like "metal armor will hamper a druids spellcasting" and you wanted to run a barbarian/druid/ranger multiclass, then you couldn't just have them wear armor from the other class.

4. The design of the archetype of a druid is viewed as wearing animal skins for armor. Allowing them to wear metal armor breaks that because without the rule, most druids would just wear metal armor, which isn't what the classic druid wears.

So while this edition doesn't have a strict fluff reason laid out, you can find it if you look through the history of D&D, and you're DM can handwaive it away as needed for specific characters while keeping it for most.


Actually this thread reminds me a lot of the "Why can't rogues sneak attack with a great weapon?"

The real answer comes down to, a classic rogue uses small finesse weapons, and that's what they want the majority of the rogues and players using. Otherwise, every single rogue would be a fool to not sneak attack with a great sword. They don't spell that out, but that's the design goal of the class. Sure, a DM can handwaive the great weapon thing away, and it doesn't break the class, but the trope for rogues is that they use small weapons like daggers or rapiers.

[tieren]

It's not fluff. It's a specific instruction in the proficiency section of the druid class that says they will not wear armor with a certain quality (metal).

Is there a table somewhere that lists which armor types have the quality (metal)?

I like the idea of not being able to wildshape in it. Land druids are probably wildshaping outside of combat anyway so would put a neat incentive for them to doff and don armor given the situation.

It would make more sense to me if metal was in some way taboo, but I don't think anyone really suggests they can't use belt buckles, wear metal necklaces or rings, use metal weapons or cutlery etc...

As to the snowflake exception to rule argument I refer to every Drizzt clone drow player ever.

[Naanomi]

As I said before, I'd have much preferred an actual mechanical consequence to wearing metal armour (whether impeding wild shape in some way or hindering spellcasting or somesuch).

If we are creating houserules either way (allowing metal armor or making a restriction), I prefer the latter if it really becomes necessary (which, I will add, no druid player has ever approached me complaining about this restriction)

But that ceases to work when the actual mechanics of the class change drastically. In 3.5, a druid who wore metal armour lost all his powers for the duration and for an additional 24hrs thereafter.

For what it was worth, a 2e druid who wore metal armor ‘fell’ and needed atonement to regain any class feature… even the ‘lost druid’ Kit that represents druids working outside of the druid circles had to maintain the armor restrictions

Something else to consider is that, unlike in 3.5, we have druids that can be tied to the underdark. Would they really see metal as unnatural?

2e had ‘grey druids’ from the underground, also not allowed to use metal armor for what it is worth… a few druid circles (jungle?) couldn’t use armor at all!

From a more meta-awareness standpoint, making metal armor is *significantly* more technologically sophisticated than making metal weapons… to me a lot of the druid restrictions from an aesthetic perspective is to invoke some sense of primitivism. The metal itself isn’t unnatural, it is crossing some (admittedly undefined) line of technological advancement towards industrialization

(And, again, not all settings have metal itself as a natural thing… Planescape/Forgotten Realms dwarven mythology and the Darksun campaign setting both have metal as an unnatural substance in the setting)


Interestingly, another aspect of Druidism that is sort of ‘secret’ that used to carry a mechanical penalty but no longer does is teaching other people the ‘secret language’; another thing that all druids ‘won’t’ do classically is teach other people Druidic as a ‘all class’ roleplaying restriction (without mechanical penalties)

[Tetrasodium]

Is there a table somewhere that lists which armor types have the quality (metal)?

I like the idea of not being able to wildshape in it. Land druids are probably wildshaping outside of combat anyway so would put a neat incentive for them to doff and don armor given the situation.

It would make more sense to me if metal was in some way taboo, but I don't think anyone really suggests they can't use belt buckles, wear metal necklaces or rings, use metal weapons or cutlery etc...

As to the snowflake exception to rule argument I refer to every Drizzt clone drow player ever.

No there is not. the only armor in the dmg that even includes the word "metal" is the mithral one; but in bizarre contrast adamantine is only a "substance", the phb doesn't state either. You have to look in the MM to find that adamantine is a metal as stated on page 127. The descriptions of the different armor types on phb144&145 all mention if there is metal in them, but most aside from plate devote far more towards describing how leather & nonmetal substances are used.

Originally Posted by Dr. Cliché View Post
Yeah, I think saying something like 'most druids will not wear metal armour' or 'druid orders do not permit their members to wear metal armour' would have solved a lot of issues. You still have the vast majority of druids eschewing metal armour, but you also have the possibility of exceptions.

The struggle that creates, to me, is that *every* PC would be 'the exception' because of gamist concerns (I mean, do you ever see a fighter in Chain Mail for 'rp reasons'?). I would have liked some minor, but annoying, mechanical effects myself (takes an extra use of wildshape? Difficulty with concentration checks?). I could envision a subclass, or even background (heretic: background benefit: can ignore strictures of religions etc) that removes the restriction but still keeps it 'rare' in some way

Well... the more relevant point for me is: 'campaign settings were built with the assumptions and aesthetics of previous editions, so to keep consistency in those settings I maintain it' much more than 'old edition fluff applies universally to new editions'

I'm not surprised, but truly gobsmacked by the level of cognitive dissonance seemingly being displayed here by you after taking so much issue terms like reduced availability/exotic/rare/etc being summed up & defined as "none" yet are so quick to jump ship to the claim that it would suddenly mean "every pc druid" if the phb wording were something like "most druids will not" or similar. You've tried to refute that comparison with an example of a 15ish level party so far coming across maybe 3 magic medium armors with 100% of those being metal "because it made sense where they found them and who owned them before". Then followed it up with a good paragraph on how nonmetal armor would be exotic, your average armorsmith would not know how to make or repair it, so on and so forth before finishing with a comparison to +1 pistols, or a flaming flaming Kusari-gama not being in a every dragon's hoarde...Finally as if it was not clear enough that less common was truly just a another way of saying "none", http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...le posts later You repky to someone that how your average blacksmith probably doesn't know much about making armor in what appears to be an attempt to support your claim of less common != none by correcting his villageblacksmith example out how the "your standard armorsmith at the local keep" doesn't know much about making nonmetal armor either even though an armorsmith is far more specialized than a blacksmith & being the armorsmith at the keep implies they are also of at least a moderate level of skill.. in a world with rust druids & monsters.... Other than that, it's perfectly available... on the other side of the world... on top of horrible mount painful death... wherethe secretive hermit is rumored to live.


But hey, if only "most" druids will not wear armor, then that is the same as saying that all pc druids are exceptional in some way that makes them different from average. Exceptional examples.... you know like every other pc class in the game given how CR of a creature with many levels in a PC class can still be well below the number of class levels & no druid can be exceptional.

Perhaps you could explain how given your less common=0% but not none & regular keep armorsmiths won't know how to make it is somehow not the same as "none"; but if the phb only said "most druids will not wear metal armor" then all as in 100% of PC druids would wear it. Given that most is simply a variant of more & more/less are effectively direct antonyms, would things change if it only said "more druids will not wear metal armor than will wear it" or "less druids will wear metal armor than will"?

[MadBear]

No there is not. the only armor in the dmg that even includes the word "metal" is the mithral one; but in bizarre contrast adamantine is only a "substance", the phb doesn't state either. You have to look in the MM to find that adamantine is a metal as stated on page 127. The descriptions of the different armor types on phb144&145 all mention if there is metal in them, but most aside from plate devote far more towards describing how leather & nonmetal substances are used.



I'm not surprised, but truly gobsmacked by the level of cognitive dissonance seemingly being displayed here by you after taking so much issue terms like reduced availability/exotic/rare/etc being summed up & defined as "none" yet are so quick to jump ship to the claim that it would suddenly mean "every pc druid" if the phb wording were something like "most druids will not" or similar. You've tried to refute that comparison with an example of a 15ish level party so far coming across maybe 3 magic medium armors with 100% of those being metal "because it made sense where they found them and who owned them before". Then followed it up with a good paragraph on how nonmetal armor would be exotic, your average armorsmith would not know how to make or repair it, so on and so forth before finishing with a comparison to +1 pistols, or a flaming flaming Kusari-gama not being in a every dragon's hoarde...Finally as if it was not clear enough that less common was truly just a another way of saying "none", http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...le posts later You repky to someone that how your average blacksmith probably doesn't know much about making armor in what appears to be an attempt to support your claim of less common != none by correcting his villageblacksmith example out how the "your standard armorsmith at the local keep" doesn't know much about making nonmetal armor either even though an armorsmith is far more specialized than a blacksmith & being the armorsmith at the keep implies they are also of at least a moderate level of skill.. in a world with rust druids & monsters.... Other than that, it's perfectly available... on the other side of the world... on top of horrible mount painful death... wherethe secretive hermit is rumored to live.


But hey, if only "most" druids will not wear armor, then that is the same as saying that all pc druids are exceptional in some way that makes them different from average. Exceptional examples.... you know like every other pc class in the game given how CR of a creature with many levels in a PC class can still be well below the number of class levels & no druid can be exceptional.

Perhaps you could explain how given your less common=0% but not none & regular keep armorsmiths won't know how to make it is somehow not the same as "none"; but if the phb only said "most druids will not wear metal armor" then all as in 100% of PC druids would wear it. Given that most is simply a variant of more & more/less are effectively direct antonyms, would things change if it only said "more druids will not wear metal armor than will wear it" or "less druids will wear metal armor than will"?

I'm not surprised, but truly gobsmacked by how thick you have been on this thread missing what others have said.

[Dr. Cliché]

Let me turn this around slightly, if I may.

I suggested before that it would have been better to say 'most druids will not wear metal armour'. This was objected to on the grounds that all players would end up wearing metal armour on their druids.

Here is my question: let's say that this happened, would your objection be on the grounds of fluff or mechanics?

- If it is based on mechanics (i.e. the extra AC would make them too strong), what if they didn't have proficiency in metal armour? So, if they wanted to wear chain or such, they'd have to either take a feat or take a level in a different class. Would this be enough to offset the potential advantage?

- If it is based on fluff, surely the druid is still going to be in the vast minority within the context of the world itself? I mean, I'd have thought it would be rare for a person to make a deal with an archdevil or be born with dragon's blood in his veins, yet no one objects to people playing warlocks or sorcerers. What's more, it is a choice that could easily have ramifications when it comes to interacting with other druids, and druid conclaves.

[MadBear]

Let me turn this around slightly, if I may.

I suggested before that it would have been better to say 'most druids will not wear metal armour'. This was objected to on the grounds that all players would end up wearing metal armour on their druids.

Here is my question: let's say that this happened, would your objection be on the grounds of fluff or mechanics?

- If it is based on mechanics (i.e. the extra AC would make them too strong), what if they didn't have proficiency in metal armour? So, if they wanted to wear chain or such, they'd have to either take a feat or take a level in a different class. Would this be enough to offset the potential advantage?

- If it is based on fluff, surely the druid is still going to be in the vast minority within the context of the world itself? I mean, I'd have thought it would be rare for a person to make a deal with an archdevil or be born with dragon's blood in his veins, yet no one objects to people playing warlocks or sorcerers. What's more, it is a choice that could easily have ramifications when it comes to interacting with other druids, and druid conclaves.

Again, I think this is an excellent question/point.

In the context of a D&D world, a warlock tied to a demon patron is exceedingly rare, and makes the character unique. I see why you'd compare this to the druid wearing armor, and I can at least give my opinion on the difference.

Personally, I wouldn't object to a player at my table rolling with metal armor for their druid, if they gave a reason why they bucked the trend.

My objection to it being "Most druids will not" as opposed to "Druids will not" comes from a design goal.

The goal of the warlock class is to have a character who fits the mold of the guy who sold his soul for power. The rules within the class meet this goal well.

The goal of the druid is to have that naturalist caster who lives with the animals wearing animals skins. Letting them wear metal armor breaks this trope.

It's the same reason that rogues can't use sneak attack with a great sword. Thematically it doesn't fit what a rogue is supposed to be.

All of this allows, players, especially new players, to create characters that match the traditional archetype.

Otherwise the traditional character ends up not matching the archetype the game is going for. It's not that everyone need match that archetype. But if the game is modeling a traditional archetype, but the mechanics lead to that never/rarely happening, it's poor game design.

[tieren]

It's the same reason that rogues can't use sneak attack with a great sword. Thematically it doesn't fit what a rogue is supposed to be.

I believe this is a false equivalency. Rogues can use great swords, they just can't sneak attack with them. They need to work harder to get the proficiency, using a feat or MC'ing, but you don't have a rule "rogues won't ever use great swords".

I think it would have been better if druids were given proficiency in light armors and Hide armor, period. You would have the nod back to non-metal armor wearing druids which appears to be desired by the fluff, but they could also gain proficiency in additional armors like any other class through feats or MC'ing.

[Naanomi]

Ok, a lot to respond to here; though a lot of repetition...

I'm not surprised, but truly gobsmacked by the level of cognitive dissonance seemingly being displayed here by you after taking so much issue terms like reduced availability/exotic/rare/etc being summed up & defined as "none" yet are so quick to jump ship to the claim that it would suddenly mean "every pc druid" if the phb wording were something like "most druids will not" or similar.

When I look at PC spell lists, I see a lot of the same spells; even though in theory there is no reason to believe any spell in the Player's Handbook is any more 'rare' than another... why? I see a lot more Rapiers than Shortswords on equipment lists, but one might think a Short Swrod is a more common weapon... why? Because this is a game, a game with mechanical components, and it is human nature to attempt to maximize mechanical benefits. While a few players might jump on the 'roleplaying' idea of non-metal armor, just like I see a few players using spears and not longswords, pikes and not halberds, or making other non-optimal choices; by and large I would expect Druids to be wearing Breastplates and Half-Plate even if the non-rules said 'druids generally don't like that'.

You've tried to refute that comparison with an example of a 15ish level party so far coming across maybe 3 magic medium armors with 100% of those being metal "because it made sense where they found them and who owned them before".

Yes, my campaign is pretty low magic; and there is virtually no equivalent of a 'magic mart' or place to get magic items of your choice. Several of those characters are still using non-magic equipment in many slots. Magic items tend to come from ancient hordes, or are created through the church of the Forge God (which is a impassive God with a small following). The three pieces of magic medium armor they have found: A breastplate +1 that was 'blessed' by the Forge God (along with a bunch of other pieces of equipment) that they were actually wearing at the time; the Half-Plate of Piercing Resistance that a big town guard captain was wearing (he died in a Giant attack, and a less scrupulous party member looted him); and a set of Adamantine Scalemail on a dwarven adventurer (given to them as a gift for resurrecting him when they found him dead in a dungeon that had killed a bunch of adventuring parties attempting to explore it). Nothing popped out of a barrel when it was kicked over Diablo-style, nothing rolled on a random chart. All organically placed in the locations it was found, because that is how I run my campaign.

Then followed it up with a good paragraph on how nonmetal armor would be exotic, your average armorsmith would not know how to make or repair it, so on and so forth before finishing with a comparison to +1 pistols, or a flaming flaming Kusari-gama not being in a every dragon's hoarde...

Right, the idea being that I was highlighting how some equipment is more rare than others naturally. Most settings, enchanted pistols are not common; nor asian weaponry; and expecting to find it everywhere isn't likely to occur. In my setting, and in my perception most 'pseudo-medieval European fantasy settings', non-metal armor fills that same space (though not likely *as* rare as a pistol may be): not non-existent, but unexpected

Finally as if it was not clear enough that less common was truly just a another way of saying "none", http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...le posts later You repky to someone that how your average blacksmith probably doesn't know much about making armor in what appears to be an attempt to support your claim of less common != none by correcting his villageblacksmith example out how the "your standard armorsmith at the local keep" doesn't know much about making nonmetal armor either even though an armorsmith is far more specialized than a blacksmith & being the armorsmith at the keep implies they are also of at least a moderate level of skill.. in a world with rust druids & monsters.... Other than that, it's perfectly available... on the other side of the world... on top of horrible mount painful death... wherethe secretive hermit is rumored to live.

While certainaly *more* people would know how to make non-metal armor in a fantasy setting than in a real setting (especially if there is a significant druidic market for it), I just can't reconcile the normal setting's visuals and technology levels with a set of crystal full plate or wooden breastplates hanging on the average shopkeep's wall. Most people are not serving exotic adventurers as the norm, they are outfitting the Baron's soldiers or selling blades on the side to the local bandits.

The most common source of non-metal armor would likely be the Druid circle itself, a druid looking to purchase armor might have to track down their local circle; but once there they probably can make (or know the source of) a good 'druid-friendly' armorsmith. There are a few other places as well, anywhere that is 'metal light' for whatever reason will turn to other materials... I have 'olmec' inspired dwarves on one continent that make stone weapons and armor, for example, and there is an equivalent of 'ironwood' that the more feral wood-elf tribes use. If a player is interested in investigating, I'm sure there are other examples we can make collaboratively. Again, I'm not saying 'rare doesn't mean you will never find it', I'm saying 'rare means you will need to make extra effort to find it in most circumstances'

Perhaps you could explain how given your less common=0% but not none & regular keep armorsmiths won't know how to make it is somehow not the same as "none"; but if the phb only said "most druids will not wear metal armor" then all as in 100% of PC druids would wear it. Given that most is simply a variant of more & more/less are effectively direct antonyms, would things change if it only said "more druids will not wear metal armor than will wear it" or "less druids will wear metal armor than will"?

I'm... not exactly sure what you are saying; but if I am interpreting you right then my answer is that players rarely adhere to roleplaying suggestions that get in the way of mechanical strength without a penalty in place to encourage it. No line of 'blowguns are the ancestral weapon of halflings on the southern continent' text would ever make me expect a halfling PC to use one as their primary weapon; and similarly I wouldn't expect most player druids to refuse to wear half-plate even if the book said 'almost no druids will ever ever ever wear metal armor ever, but some can if they really want to' in any 'fluff' section of a class description.

If it is based on fluff, surely the druid is still going to be in the vast minority within the context of the world itself? I mean, I'd have thought it would be rare for a person to make a deal with an archdevil or be born with dragon's blood in his veins, yet no one objects to people playing warlocks or sorcerers. What's more, it is a choice that could easily have ramifications when it comes to interacting with other druids, and druid conclaves.

I would argue, to a degree, that *any* druid is rare... most 'druid circle members' are just like most members of a church: acolytes and priests without any significant magic ability. Similar to a sorcerer player who asked me for some non-sorcerer spells added to their spell list so they are not a 'boring old sorcere like any other': there is no such thing as a boring old sorcerer (or druid) from a setting perspective, they don't need something else to differentiate them. Any person with any class levels are already 'rare'; wanting to make yourself 'even more special than the already super special person' in a setting sense is often one step too far for me (but not always, I'll always listen to the argument at the very least)

[MadBear]

I believe this is a false equivalency. Rogues can use great swords, they just can't sneak attack with them. They need to work harder to get the proficiency, using a feat or MC'ing, but you don't have a rule "rogues won't ever use great swords".

I think it would have been better if druids were given proficiency in light armors and Hide armor, period. You would have the nod back to non-metal armor wearing druids which appears to be desired by the fluff, but they could also gain proficiency in additional armors like any other class through feats or MC'ing.

It's not a false equivalency at all. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the case with all analogies. the overarching point is that in both cases the rules are trying to match the archetype of the traditional character. The traditional rogue doesn't use a greatsword to sneak attack so thats how the rules are set up. Meanwhile, the traditional druid doesn't wear metal armor so that's how the rules are set up.

In both cases the DM could (maybe even should) work with the player to make their game best for all, but the rules are there trying match the normal archetype.

[Tetrasodium]

It's not a false equivalency at all. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the case with all analogies. the overarching point is that in both cases the rules are trying to match the archetype of the traditional character. The traditional rogue doesn't use a greatsword to sneak attack so thats how the rules are set up. Meanwhile, the traditional druid doesn't wear metal armor so that's how the rules are set up.

In both cases the DM could (maybe even should) work with the player to make their game best for all, but the rules are there trying match the normal archetype.

The original line being argued over as false equivalency is "It's the same reason that rogues can't use sneak attack with a great sword. Thematically it doesn't fit what a rogue is supposed to be. "

While you are probably right that it is not false equivalency, for all the reasons that both you & tieren noted against the original statement & his/her reasons for calling it out it is unquestionably & without doubt an obnoxious and downright dishonest level of Reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately this level of condescending behavior is far too common in this thread.

Ok, a lot to respond to here; though a lot of repetition...

Yes, unfortunately we keep arguing the same battles as reaching a consensus on point A & then moving on to point B seemingly invalidates point A.

When I look at PC spell lists, I see a lot of the same spells; even though in theory there is no reason to believe any spell in the Player's Handbook is any more 'rare' than another... why? I see a lot more Rapiers than Shortswords on equipment lists, but one might think a Short Swrod is a more common weapon... why? Because this is a game, a game with mechanical components, and it is human nature to attempt to maximize mechanical benefits. While a few players might jump on the 'roleplaying' idea of non-metal armor, just like I see a few players using spears and not longswords, pikes and not halberds, or making other non-optimal choices; by and large I would expect Druids to be wearing Breastplates and Half-Plate even if the non-rules said 'druids generally don't like that'.


Yes, my campaign is pretty low magic; and there is virtually no equivalent of a 'magic mart' or place to get magic items of your choice. Several of those characters are still using non-magic equipment in many slots. Magic items tend to come from ancient hordes, or are created through the church of the Forge God (which is a impassive God with a small following). The three pieces of magic medium armor they have found: A breastplate +1 that was 'blessed' by the Forge God (along with a bunch of other pieces of equipment) that they were actually wearing at the time; the Half-Plate of Piercing Resistance that a big town guard captain was wearing (he died in a Giant attack, and a less scrupulous party member looted him); and a set of Adamantine Scalemail on a dwarven adventurer (given to them as a gift for resurrecting him when they found him dead in a dungeon that had killed a bunch of adventuring parties attempting to explore it). Nothing popped out of a barrel when it was kicked over Diablo-style, nothing rolled on a random chart. All organically placed in the locations it was found, because that is how I run my campaign.


Right, the idea being that I was highlighting how some equipment is more rare than others naturally. Most settings, enchanted pistols are not common; nor asian weaponry; and expecting to find it everywhere isn't likely to occur. In my setting, and in my perception most 'pseudo-medieval European fantasy settings', non-metal armor fills that same space (though not likely *as* rare as a pistol may be): not non-existent, but unexpected


While certainaly *more* people would know how to make non-metal armor in a fantasy setting than in a real setting (especially if there is a significant druidic market for it), I just can't reconcile the normal setting's visuals and technology levels with a set of crystal full plate or wooden breastplates hanging on the average shopkeep's wall. Most people are not serving exotic adventurers as the norm, they are outfitting the Baron's soldiers or selling blades on the side to the local bandits.

The most common source of non-metal armor would likely be the Druid circle itself, a druid looking to purchase armor might have to track down their local circle; but once there they probably can make (or know the source of) a good 'druid-friendly' armorsmith. There are a few other places as well, anywhere that is 'metal light' for whatever reason will turn to other materials... I have 'olmec' inspired dwarves on one continent that make stone weapons and armor, for example, and there is an equivalent of 'ironwood' that the more feral wood-elf tribes use. If a player is interested in investigating, I'm sure there are other examples we can make collaboratively. Again, I'm not saying 'rare doesn't mean you will never find it', I'm saying 'rare means you will need to make extra effort to find it in most circumstances'


I'm... not exactly sure what you are saying; but if I am interpreting you right then my answer is that players rarely adhere to roleplaying suggestions that get in the way of mechanical strength without a penalty in place to encourage it. No line of 'blowguns are the ancestral weapon of halflings on the southern continent' text would ever make me expect a halfling PC to use one as their primary weapon; and similarly I wouldn't expect most player druids to refuse to wear half-plate even if the book said 'almost no druids will ever ever ever wear metal armor ever, but some can if they really want to' in any 'fluff' section of a class description.


I would argue, to a degree, that *any* druid is rare... most 'druid circle members' are just like most members of a church: acolytes and priests without any significant magic ability. Similar to a sorcerer player who asked me for some non-sorcerer spells added to their spell list so they are not a 'boring old sorcere like any other': there is no such thing as a boring old sorcerer (or druid) from a setting perspective, they don't need something else to differentiate them. Any person with any class levels are already 'rare'; wanting to make yourself 'even more special than the already super special person' in a setting sense is often one step too far for me (but not always, I'll always listen to the argument at the very least)]

]A few people have pointed out the importance of raw, and those are nowhere near a full catalog of them or only the most forceful ones.
The problem repeatedly striking this thread comes when someone makes a point that amounts to "by RAW, x is effectively equal to 2Y" and switches to "[but I would say 3Z in my campaign...] That sort of rebuttal is two statements but there is a refusal to separate them. by raw, the player of a druid physically can choose to make up all sorts of reasons why his or her character has no issues with wearing metal armor or views it as acceptable because by raw there is nothing to prevent them so much as a list of what exactly is metal armor or why they "will not" wear it. This is not like a player choosing to jump from the ground to the top of the tower as some have likened it to, because that situation is covered both by logic & skill checks such as "Ok give me an athletics check">"well you ddn't roll eleventy billion & instead of reaching the top make a jump that might get you as far as knee level with the doorknob before landing on your feet". A player or gm going for a pulpy feel could describe all the jumps, lunges, & leaps made in the process of making continual athletics checks to climb the tower, but the end result is virtually indistinguishable from a more gritty setting going into the perfect handholds, crumbling footholds, & cold jagged rocks on a mechanical level because they are just two ways of accomplishing "a player climbs a tower" If the player were to make clear that they want to try to climb the tower, a perfectly reasonable desire, and the gm simply says "well you can't, the module says nobody ever does that" rather than pointing out how powerfully warded it no doubt is, how smooth & perfectly fitting the stones are, or any number of other things... they have embodied the absolute worst possible form of GM'ing & deserve to be called out for it. That deserving of being called out goes triple if they double down on dismissing the player's reason with something that amounts to "because RAW says".

a player who feels like their character should have no trouble wearing metal armor, has no bearing on if that player is also interested into dragging the group all over on quests just to gather/collect/craft/find crafters for the level of gear most everyone else just finds here & there as they go, or even. If a GM says that nonmental armor will be harder to find/less common/etc, it effectively means that it will probably not exist unless the player is also willing to drag the group around like that.

To underscore that, take my druid for example, he wears metal armor, he drags the group around convincing people everywhere they go to let his people(kobolds) dig tunnels under their cities/towns in a win win situation of mutual harmony between surface & subsurface worlds where the locals get a proper/setting incredible level sewage system & more of his people get a reasinably safe place to live where they can dig tunnels & trade subterranean work/found shiny things for fiood or useful tools & such they cannot make well themselves. I'm not willing to drag the group around looking for nonmetal armor though. If my GM had given reasons for saying no instead of somethiing like "pfft, go for it because I think it's a stupid rule with the 3.5>5 barkskin changes, plus I like that reason" it effectively would not exist for me unless I was willing to abandon any pretense of him being a kobold and an interesting druid that himself has spawned significant hooks & plots for the gm in the process of being interesting to the group in order to run around looking for better & better armors instead like some two dimensional cutout. If my GM had said "no because RAW" and followed "but what about ..." with "RAW says you will not wear metal armor & thus it will NEVER happen", I'm pretty sure the whole table would have found or nominated a different GM for obvious reasons.

My kobold druid's choice to wear armor was not "I'm gonna minmax this twinky munchkin way out",; but simply "wait did nobody in the group want that dragonguard breastplate we just found[early on while starting in lmop], are you sure you don't? and you? and you? etc " In my kobold druid's particular group. As a fun note, the only metal noted in the dragonguard breastplate is "a gold dragon motif worked into its design", but since that is either "a gold dragon motif" or " a dragon motif that is made of gold", it can just as easily be made of dragonbone or something if you are averse to metal.

In your campaign where you talk about how scarcity & such are cornerstone parts of the plot & such, if the level of difficulty for a druid to find base nonmetal medium armor was on par with the level of difficulty a fighter/cleric/paladin/etc had in finding metal equivalents... then it is entirely irrelevant to a raw discussion & wrong to say is is less common/rare/etc because the only rarity in your campaign would just be "armor in general". If the level of effort is not at all close to being the same, then it's actually punishing the druid over all of those other classes & using an excuse like "armor is scarce" while ignoring the fact that it's far more reasonably available to everyone else.

Operating under the reasonable assumption that you are probably not punishing the druid who would like better armor with hardships beyond those of any other player who would like better armor but is not interested in making a huge ordeal out of it... then your objections over less common==effectively none serve no purpose other than to lower the signal & lower the noise. If that assumption is wrong, then you are proving the less common==none comparison to reasonably close to accurate at worst. We really don't need more noise given all the Reductio ad absurdum, false equivalencies, table pounding circular logic, & so on. The simple fact of the matter is that much like how you can be jewish/muslim & eat pork for whatever reason while still being jewish/muslim, there is not actually anything that prevents a druid's player from deciding that their character will decide similar & wear metal armor for whatever reason due to the fact that by strict raw there is nothing to prevent them from looking at their reasons & making that choice.

By strict RAW there is no reason why a druid would not wear metal armor & by both RAW and story fluff there are lots of reasons why a particular druid might consider it far more reasonable solution to not getting stabbbed than some bizarre ironwood/stone/shell/etc armor that comes from a far off place with no connection to anything they might consider normal

[MadBear]

Unfortunately this level of condescending behavior is far too common in this thread.

Oh the irony

[tkuremento]

By strict RAW there is no reason why a druid would not wear metal armor

There is, it is called the putting nonmetal in the proficiencies of the Druid. Fluff would be how in Great Weapon Master feat it says "You've learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage" but doesn't GIVE you ACTUAL advantage as defined in the book.

Oh the irony

Agreed. Edit: is this some kind of pun? Because metal...

[KorvinStarmast]

Nitpick ... AD&D 1e was neither the beginning of D&D nor the beginning of the Druid class. Because from Dungeons & Dragons Supplement III - Eldritch Wizardry, which is where the Druid class first appeared as a PC class:
"They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor."

Roleplaying rules for Druids, from the same book:
"Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendency of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest —no matter how enchanted or evil it may be—although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own [sic] magicks."

Like most roleplaying games, D&D has a long history of roleplaying rules and/or restrictions. It's a modern fallacy that players must/should be in charge of what their PC believes at all times. Just as the idea that all rules can be divided into the categories of fluff/mechanics is a modern fallacy.

Thank you, saved me the trouble. EW is the basis of my first Druid ever.

Except that the very same SA article you quoted in post 31 also says that the DM has the final say in regards to how far you can go from your class's story and still be considered a member of that class, which is to say that if the DM decides that wearing metal armour is going too far for a druid, you can't be a druid and wear metal armour.

And no-one is arguing that druids can't wear metal armour ever because RAW, they're saying that if you're playing in a game that for whatever reason abides strictly by RAW they can't wear metal armour in that game.

Well put.

[FinnS]

Nitpick ... AD&D 1e was neither the beginning of D&D nor the beginning of the Druid class.

However, it's only a nitpick. Because from Dungeons & Dragons Supplement III - Eldritch Wizardry, which is where the Druid class first appeared as a PC class:
"They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor."

True but the Druid and the basic rules themselves were separated after this.
I started playing in 1984 when my best friend got the finalized Red Box basic set for his 13th Bday which only had the Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf and Halfling to choose from as Classes.
Played through the Blue Expert, Cyan Companion and Black Master boxsets but switched to AD&D instead of playing the Gold Immortal set.

Either way, my only point was that the Druid was restricted from using Metal armors and shields right from the beginning.
The post I quoted implied that that only started in 2E.
That's all I was nitpicking.

Oh the irony

[Vaz]

Well put.

Except incorrect. They "won't", which is different from "can't". Replacing words just because you feel like it isn't how RAW works. "Can't" and "Won't" mean something entirely different. Which brings us back to the point of why is the rulebook forcing RP choices on mechanics when they RAW, "legally" can wear metal armour? Especially when there are lliterally no downsides for doing so.

[Cybren]

Except incorrect. They "won't", which is different from "can't". Replacing words just because you feel like it isn't how RAW works. "Can't" and "Won't" mean something entirely different. Which brings us back to the point of why is the rulebook forcing RP choices on mechanics when they RAW, "legally" can wear metal armour? Especially when there are lliterally no downsides for doing so.

They won't do so, so there doesn't need to be a downside. It's no more forcing an RP choice than saying a warlock has a pact with something, a cleric believes in something, etc. Each class has some kind of implied story, and different elements for different classes are more prominent

[Tanarii]

Except incorrect. They "won't", which is different from "can't". Replacing words just because you feel like it isn't how RAW works. "Can't" and "Won't" mean something entirely different. Which brings us back to the point of why is the rulebook forcing RP choices on mechanics when they RAW, "legally" can wear metal armour? Especially when there are lliterally no downsides for doing so.

If they won't do it, the RAW cannot "legally" wear metal armor. Because they are breaking a Rule as Written if they do it.

And the rule is forcing RP choices on mechanics because roleplaying rules are, as I've pointed out, a thing.

[Tetrasodium]

They won't do so, so there doesn't need to be a downside. It's no more forcing an RP choice than saying a warlock has a pact with something, a cleric believes in something, etc. Each class has some kind of implied story, and different elements for different classes are more prominent

underline & italics mine.

And that's a fine position to take, except the fatal flaw in attempting to do so is that whatever page or pages of RAW to support it are either so well hidden that after many many pages, not one of the vocal "RAW says druids will not wear metal armor" crowd has managed to actually quote it. Not even the most charitable teacher in early grade school when children are learning to write would consider "druids will not w ear armor or use shields made of metal" to be a "story", yet we have pages and pages from people pounding the table in demand that everyone accept it as a story of such epic quality that it overrides and and all actual descriptive RAW & story fluff within all other parts of the game no matter how discordant the resulting collision is. Not only is there no "story" to support it, there is neither "story" nor RAW mechanics to push back against a druid who chooses for whatever reason to make that choice that choice.

[Cybren]

underline & italics mine.

And that's a fine position to take, except the fatal flaw in attempting to do so is that whatever page or pages of RAW to support it are either so well hidden that after many many pages, not one of the vocal "RAW says druids will not wear metal armor" crowd has managed to actually quote it. Not even the most charitable teacher in early grade school when children are learning to write would consider "druids will not w ear armor or use shields made of metal" to be a "story", yet we have pages and pages from people pounding the table in demand that everyone accept it as a story of such epic quality that it overrides and and all actual descriptive RAW & story fluff within all other parts of the game no matter how discordant the resulting collision is. Not only is there no "story" to support it, there is neither "story" nor RAW mechanics to push back against a druid who chooses for whatever reason to make that choice that choice.

There doesn't need to be mechanics. The story is explicit and unambiguous: druids won't wear metal armor. No one is "demanding" anything, people are simply pointing out if you want to deviate from "druids won't wear metal armor", ask your DM.

My guess is the vast majority of DMs would be fine waiving it, or making it a superficial difference and give the druid non-metal analogs to most armors, or any number of things. But saying "I don't like it therefore I will ignore it" isn't a productive way to engage with the game when that sort of thing is explicitly the DMs call, and to be frank, while I would have no problem letting a druid PC wear metal armor in one of my games, I would absolutely not be okay with a player that unilaterally makes decisions about what is and isn't acceptable in the game, and if I did say "I prefer to enforce druids not using metal for [whatever reason i happen to have] and that player responded with petulant whining, I'd probably not invite them back to my games. That isn't tyrannical, that's just seeing childish behavior for what it is and not wanting to deal with it.

[Tetrasodium]

There doesn't need to be mechanics. The story is explicit and unambiguous: druids won't wear metal armor. No one is "demanding" anything, people are simply pointing out if you want to deviate from "druids won't wear metal armor", ask your DM.

My guess is the vast majority of DMs would be fine waiving it, or making it a superficial difference and give the druid non-metal analogs to most armors, or any number of things. But saying "I don't like it therefore I will ignore it" isn't a productive way to engage with the game when that sort of thing is explicitly the DMs call, and to be frank, while I would have no problem letting a druid PC wear metal armor in one of my games, I would absolutely not be okay with a player that unilaterally makes decisions about what is and isn't acceptable in the game, and if I did say "I prefer to enforce druids not using metal for [whatever reason i happen to have] and that player responded with petulant whining, I'd probably not invite them back to my games. That isn't tyrannical, that's just seeing childish behavior for what it is and not wanting to deal with it.

"druids won't wear metal armor"is a statement not a "story". Perhaps you could try that again& actually find some story without resorting to circular logic since you are the one who said there was one. Unfortunately, that "story" is only to be found in older editions & you apparantly lack the honesty to admit that there is no story whatsoever to justify it within 5th edition d&d

[Cybren]

"druids won't wear metal armor"is a statement not a "story". Perhaps you could try that again& actually find some story without resorting to circular logic since you are the one who said there was one. Unfortunately, that "story" is only to be found in older editions & you apparantly lack the honesty to admit that there is no story whatsoever to justify it within 5th edition d&d

I am using "story" in the way the 5th edition designers do, to encompass the full narrative implications in the design of the class, either hinted at through mechanics and how they are framed, stated during flavor text, or otherwise. That you take umbrage with that use is not my fault, it is the one the designers chose, and you will see them use it in the same way. And it's immaterial to the point of my post, which is "i have no problem accommodating a player that makes a good faith request to change some aspect of the druidic restriction on metal armor" (or any class, really)

[tkuremento]

"druids won't wear metal armor"is a statement not a "story". Perhaps you could try that again& actually find some story without resorting to circular logic since you are the one who said there was one. Unfortunately, that "story" is only to be found in older editions & you apparantly lack the honesty to admit that there is no story whatsoever to justify it within 5th edition d&d

Tetra, the war is over, you don't need to fight anymore

Spoiler: Video

Show