Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Tetrasodium]

There is no reason for a druid not to make use of the other non-hide medium armor options they get & wotc confirmed it about a year ago

CLASS FEATURES
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.

Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.

It's trivially easy to explain away for a druid. Take my kobold moon druid's answer to it: "I come from the ground, of course metal is natural... now if you want to see bleeping bizarre, look at TREES... They grow Towards the sun and they thrive on it! What kind of madness is that. Plus their best parts are underground. You haven't lived till you've had bamboo rhizome saute & oak root stew is pretty tasty as long as you cook it long enough so the fungus you add to breing out the flavor quits being poisonous"

[Addaran]

Regardless of the reasoning, I'm sure the OP wants suggestions that fall within the RAW.

For a lot of people, SA clarification is what they follow.

Regardless, the OP pretty much have all the options available without going into magic items and while staying in caster form:

1) Lizardfolk for natural armor.
2) Get mage armor (MI, wizard dip, warlock 2 dip or dragon sorcerer dip)
3) Monk dip for unarmored ( or barbarian i guess but way less optimal)
4) 16dex + studded leather (bone) + wooden shield
5) metal armor
6) medium armor that aren't made of metal (half-plate)
7) spiked armor from SCAG
8) mirror image ( or barkskin or blur i guess)

[DivisibleByZero]

There is no reason for a druid not to make use of the other non-hide medium armor options they get & wotc confirmed it about a year ago

That isn't even close to what they were saying.
They were saying that there are rules, and there are reasons for those rules. But if you want to deviate from those rules, then talk to your DM.
....so they were saying, it's perfectly viable to houserule it if your DM allows it, but that's what it is, an houserule.

[Addaran]

That isn't even close to what they were saying.
They were saying that there are rules, and there are reasons for those rules. But if you want to deviate from those rules, then talk to your DM.
....so they were saying, it's perfectly viable to houserule it if your DM allows it, but that's what it is, an houserule.

An houserule that doesn't change game balance.

So if you want to keep the rule/fluff, there's zero reason not to make non-metal half-plate available.

[Tetrasodium]

That isn't even close to what they were saying.
They were saying that there are rules, and there are reasons for those rules. But if you want to deviate from those rules, then talk to your DM.
....so they were saying, it's perfectly viable to houserule it if your DM allows it, but that's what it is, an houserule.

nd those "reasons" they are explaining as a legacy remnant. If it was anything else, you would still see things like ironwood armor from 3.5.

[DivisibleByZero]

An houserule that doesn't change game balance.

So if you want to keep the rule/fluff, there's zero reason not to make non-metal half-plate available.

nd those "reasons" they are explaining as a legacy remnant. If it was anything else, you would still see things like ironwood armor from 3.5.

Sure, but that isn't where this discussion evolved from, and is a completely different topic.

[Addaran]

Sure, but that isn't where this discussion evolved from, and is a completely different topic.

Then we agree!

I think even Socratov agree that it's not pure RAW to be able to wear metal armor. More that wearing a "half-plate" (well medium armor) is an acceptable suggestion. And that the DM should be okay with giving the non-metal equivalent as an option or if he doesn't want, to handwave the no-metal clause.

[Tetrasodium]

Sure, but that isn't where this discussion evolved from, and is a completely different topic.

It's entirely relevant & others pointed it out on the first page. In previous versions where you had things like barkskin giving a +2 to +5 enhancement bonus, there were real and tangible reasons why they would not wear metal armor in order to avoid the crippling penalty. in 5th they removed both the penalty & the alternative options but left some of the legacy cruft in the form of thematic fluff that is easily described away in character without houserules due to the lack of any reason even being offered in the rules for why.

Maybe down the line they will introduce 5.5 or a circle thst explicitly can not (as opposed to "will not") without explicitly losing access to some of that new circle's whiz bang new features; but that is not the case & no houseruling is necessary as a result because any penalty the GM adds is in itself a houserule well outside of the rules by either RAW or plain reading.

[DivisibleByZero]

Then we agree!

I think even Socratov agree that it's not pure RAW to be able to wear metal armor. More that wearing a "half-plate" (well medium armor) is an acceptable suggestion. And that the DM should be okay with giving the non-metal equivalent as an option or if he doesn't want, to handwave the no-metal clause.

That is not what Soc said. He said this:

No penalty and the language suggests that it is 'not done'. the line specifically says will nowhere does it say druids can't wear metal armour.

...which means he thinks that they can, by the rules, wear metal armor, because it doesn't say that they can't. Instead it says that they won't.
He obviously doesn't understand that this makes whether or not they actually can wear it irrelevant.

I will not eat brussels sprouts.
I will not jump off of a skyscraper.
I will not intentionally stab myself in the eye with a hunting knife.
Just because I can doesn't mean that I will ever do it. I choose not to, and I never will, period. Whether I can or not is irrelevant.

[CursedRhubarb]

In Bauldur's Gate 2 you could get plate made out of an Ankheg shell for the druid to wear so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get some Half-Plate or a Breastplate made from a few intact Ankheg corpses. If you just treat it as a normal set of armor, just not metal it wouldn't break anything.

On a side not, if your DM allows you to make bug armor, it might be lighter for you and worth asking. The BG2 Ankheg Plate was a set of full plate armor, only required a STR of 8 to wear and was only 25 lbs. So a set of Half-Plate would likely be about 12-13 lbs and just a Breastplate would likely be about 5-8 lbs.

Would likely need to pay a pretty copper to a skilled smith or leatherworker to get it crafted though so your price would be the e same or maybe slightly higher, in addition to having to go bug hunting for the materials.

[ad_hoc]

If we're just going to make some houserules for the OP to use for AC then I suggest you pick up +3 armour and a +3 shield.

It will do a lot better for you than the mundane armour that other posters are suggesting.

[RickAllison]

If we're just going to make some houserules for the OP to use for AC then I suggest you pick up +3 armour and a +3 shield.

It will do a lot better for you than the mundane armour that other posters are suggesting.

If we're just going to be sarcastic and unhelpful, we may as well not post. You are just being rude.

[Bugado25]

The main reason for Druids not wearing metal armor is to support the image of the class.

Ask someone how a druid should look like in their opinion or even just write "Druid" on google images. It will be hard to find a image of someone wearing metal armor in there.

If metal armor were allowed, the players would be pressed to choose it, as it is better from optimization point of view, leading to most Druids walking around with breastplates or half plates, instead of supporting the main image of the class (Covered by leathers).

[tkuremento]

sheet meat armour

? Like this ?

Spoiler: meat armor

Show

[Matrix_Walker]

So, if it doesn't break your idea of a Druid, Ask your GM about metal armor. Not a RAW option, but no matter if your GM feels it's okay.

I would ask about exotic materials; displacer beast hides, dragonscale, giant spider silk, etc.

A Barbarian Dip for Unarmored Defense and the occasional Raging Wildshape would not be the worst notion either if your stats supported such a thing (Super MAD so, prolly not if you're doing point buy).

[DivisibleByZero]

A Barbarian Dip for Unarmored Defense and the occasional Raging Wildshape would not be the worst notion either if your stats supported such a thing (Super MAD so, prolly not if you're doing point buy).

Monk 1 if you're going to dip. Better AC unless you get a +2 shield, potentially something to do with your bonus action, and not MAD as it uses your casting stat.

[Matrix_Walker]

Monk 1 if you're going to dip. Better AC unless you get a +2 shield, potentially something to do with your bonus action, and not MAD as it uses your casting stat.

That's another option, but not one I would take.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's another option, but not one I would take.

I'm of the opposite view.

[ad_hoc]

If we're just going to be sarcastic and unhelpful, we may as well not post. You are just being rude.

My point exactly.

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

[Socratov]

Then we agree!

I think even Socratov agree that it's not pure RAW to be able to wear metal armor. More that wearing a "half-plate" (well medium armor) is an acceptable suggestion. And that the DM should be okay with giving the non-metal equivalent as an option or if he doesn't want, to handwave the no-metal clause.

That is not what Soc said. He said this:


...which means he thinks that they can, by the rules, wear metal armor, because it doesn't say that they can't. Instead it says that they won't.
He obviously doesn't understand that this makes whether or not they actually can wear it irrelevant.

I will not eat brussels sprouts.
I will not jump off of a skyscraper.
I will not intentionally stab myself in the eye with a hunting knife.
Just because I can doesn't mean that I will ever do it. I choose not to, and I never will, period. Whether I can or not is irrelevant.

And yet, eating brussels sprouts might be good for you (and I'm sure someone can make them palatable).

But anyway, I find this a bit of a false equivalence: jumping from a skyscraper and stabbing yourself with a hunting knife is detrimental and carries actual risk. wearing metal armour is generally a good idea (unless it would be inferior to natural armour or a version of unarmored defence/mage armour): it protects you from harm and has no detrimental effect. It is much like math in the contemporary world: it does not carry risks, well, unless you call being able to learn a technical profession and having a greater opportunity to success a risk. Yet it is something some people just wont do. Because math.

I mean, the only reason for druids to not wear metal armour in this edition is basically because they want to be the cool kids1337-über-hippies and feel that metal is yucky. Thatis all. There is no in-game mechanical reason for druids to not wear metal. At all.

So, if it doesn't break your idea of a Druid, Ask your GM about metal armor. Not a RAW option, but no matter if your GM feels it's okay.

Indeed. Now to be hoest, i did improvise something by using my personal knowledge of woodworking to apply to my druid (gnome druid form the Timber clan who was proficient in woodworking tools) and to have him design some ironwood armour that would normally be only available in metal. Mind you, I provided drawings/skechtes, production documents, assembly instructions etc.

I would ask about exotic materials; displacer beast hides, dragonscale, giant spider silk, etc.

Besides, it's not like that gold is doing you any good in 5e now, is it? after a while it just piles up...

A Barbarian Dip for Unarmored Defense and the occasional Raging Wildshape would not be the worst notion either if your stats supported such a thing (Super MAD so, prolly not if you're doing point buy).

As someone who tried a barbarian 3/moon druid 7 build I can say that is is not at all MAD and works very well. You only need a 13 in str to multiclass into/out of barbarian, the rest can go into con and wis. it has decent combat dmg, decent out of combat versatility, some great synergy between classfeatures and the druid list has some nice spells that hep you get buffed without concentrating. And on top of it all is the fact you can make you free hp last twice as long and with better AC. You are more effective at being a wildshaper then the wildshaper himself. you last twice as long (in terms of HP by Bear totem) and you can get better AC as you add CON into the mix...You just take 2 turns to get up to speed. 1st turn is BA rage/wildshape (whichever you want to do first) and attack, 2nd turn is BA (the thing you did not do on a BA at turn 1) and going to town. Oh, and on top of that rage makes your animal (mostly bear) attacks that much more worthwhile.

the only thing I am not confident about is Barb's extra attack feature. Because I have no idea how it would work in animal form, especially if one already gets another attack.

And if that is not enough, you get a legitimate reason to make bear puns all night. And if that does not sell you to this build then nothing will.

[FinnS]

Well a lot of things have changed over the years. Clerics can use edged weapons now, Rogue's no longer get bonuses on Dex skills for wearing no armor, Paladin's used to have to actually act like...well...A Paladin, Warrior classes used to have a separate score for 18 STR, non-human races and certain classes used to have level caps and all races and genders used to have stat caps.
All that said, one thing that has never changed is the Druid's aversion to wearing metal armor.

[Tetrasodium]

The main reason for Druids not wearing metal armor is to support the image of the class.

Ask someone how a druid should look like in their opinion or even just write "Druid" on google images. It will be hard to find a image of someone wearing metal armor in there.

If metal armor were allowed, the players would be pressed to choose it, as it is better from optimization point of view, leading to most Druids walking around with breastplates or half plates, instead of supporting the main image of the class (Covered by leathers).

I did armored druid d&d in google image search:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/th...oncept_art.jpg <-pretty impressive & absolutely pays homage to the celtic cernunnos

http://media.tumblr.com/81260123d5a0...NIG1rprfgq.png <- druid or not, google thinks it is & would look pretty impressive as a bear if that's not a gnoll

http://masselin.weebly.com/uploads/7...98808_orig.jpg <- That's absolutely metal armor between those scaled gauntlets & greaves.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...8120f6c50c.jpg <-- Could be stylized metal, could be ironwood; but it doesn't matter because 5e removed the abstracton due to too many gm's only giving out ironwood armor on the absurdly rare chance it could explicitly drop in the tables

Ig the OP's druid can explain a reason why her/she would personally not see metal armor as being some heretical affront to nature, there is not a single rule to prevent the choice. Everyone arguing for the theme of fluff & story can go pound sand since we all know the game's story is not going to be focused on purity the druidic faith or something like stk is giants, PotA elemental cultusts, etc & trying to suggest it might have any significant factoring in the plot is so lolworthy that it's just obscene.

As to wildshape wearing that armor?.... that too is perfectly thematic & reasonable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FBXOrb6loQ and unlike the cries of theme, style, & tradition to older versions of d&d it actually has support by both plain reading & raw:

Spoiler: phb wildshape bit

Show

You choose whether your equipment falls to the
ground in your space, merges into your new form, or
is w orn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal,
but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.

Spoiler: dmg on magic armor

Show

Magic armor must be donned, a
shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the
shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.
[i]In most cases, a magic item that's meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they
magically adjust themselves to the wearer.
Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn't adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only.

The only question is if armor counts as a "garment" & the origin of the word clearly suggests it should with the original meanings being equip & equipment. at that point the only ambiguity is if the wildshape doesn't change size is referring to mundane equipment that would for spells like enlarge, if so.. great, let the nonmagic stuff merge.... if not, the magic armor explicitly has the ability unless there is a good reason why it should to be the rare exception that does not.

[Tetrasodium]

Well a lot of things have changed over the years. Clerics can use edged weapons now, Rogue's no longer get bonuses on Dex skills for wearing no armor, Paladin's used to have to actually act like...well...A Paladin, Warrior classes used to have a separate score for 18 STR, non-human races and certain classes used to have level caps and all races and genders used to have stat caps.
All that said, one thing that has never changed is the Druid's aversion to wearing metal armor.

old versions didn't have an aversion to it; they had a crippling penalty for it. There is a significant difference between "if you do this, you are going to lose all your toys for an unbearable length of time" and "druids will not do that out of tradition"... well traditionally there were no land druids, moon druids, kobold druids, tiefling anything, goblin druids, kenku druids, lizardfolk druids... hell traditionally they weren't even lizardFOLK.. they were lizardMEN, thematic purists better get on lizardfolk too.

[Puh Laden]

Not wearing metal armor but wearing hide and leather and using wooden shields always seemed backward to me. "I'm all about preserving the balance of nature but I'll kill animals and trees to protect myself. No of course I can't wear that metal armor that nothing died to make; it's not natural."

[Sigreid]

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

[MadBear]

*ahem*

Called it a page ago, this whole AC metal armor thing should be it's own thread, and seems entirely irrelevant to the OP's original question.

I'm not even saying it's not a discussion worth having, but this seems to be the wrong purvue, when their's a forum you could have this be its own topic.

[Bugado25]

I did armored druid d&d in google image search:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/th...oncept_art.jpg <-pretty impressive & absolutely pays homage to the celtic cernunnos

http://media.tumblr.com/81260123d5a0...NIG1rprfgq.png <- druid or not, google thinks it is & would look pretty impressive as a bear if that's not a gnoll

http://masselin.weebly.com/uploads/7...98808_orig.jpg <- That's absolutely metal armor between those scaled gauntlets & greaves.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...8120f6c50c.jpg <-- Could be stylized metal, could be ironwood; but it doesn't matter because 5e removed the abstracton due to too many gm's only giving out ironwood armor on the absurdly rare chance it could explicitly drop in the tables

I said it is hard. Not impossible. Puting a simple "Druid" on google lead me to no images of it.

Of course you will find things that may fit your image of druid on google if you look enough, but it certantly goes against the traditional image of a druid.

IMO, the 1st and 3rd images fits much better for ancients paladins or nature cleric than druid. I would certantly not think druid seeing them.

The 2nd image has exactly 0 signs that it might be a druid IMHO. And the last one looks much more like wood than painted metal to me.

Of course you may think differently, but giving then proficiency in metal armors by default would add against the theme.

[FinnS]

old versions didn't have an aversion to it; they had a crippling penalty for it. There is a significant difference between "if you do this, you are going to lose all your toys for an unbearable length of time" and "druids will not do that out of tradition"... well traditionally there were no land druids, moon druids, kobold druids, tiefling anything, goblin druids, kenku druids, lizardfolk druids... hell traditionally they weren't even lizardFOLK.. they were lizardMEN, thematic purists better get on lizardfolk too.

That's not really saying much. The imposing of penalties on races and classes in general have been phased out over the years.
Just because there is no longer a set penalty doesn't mean they can now wear metal armor. It flat out states they will not which is only semantics for they can't.

[Tetrasodium]

I said it is hard. Not impossible. Puting a simple "Druid" on google lead me to no images of it.

Of course you will find things that may fit your image of druid on google if you look enough, but it certantly goes against the traditional image of a druid.

IMO, the 1st and 3rd images fits much better for ancients paladins or nature cleric than druid. I would certantly not think druid seeing them.

The 2nd image has exactly 0 signs that it might be a druid IMHO. And the last one looks much more like wood than painted metal to me.

Of course you may think differently, but giving then proficiency in metal armors by default would add against the theme.

those were all on the first page for armored druid d&d. the d&d was only needed to filter out all the wow druids wearing various armors. You can argue about what it looks like until you turn blue, but the fact of the matter is that is entirely irrelevant to the indisputable fact that they were from the first page of a search for: armored druid d&d.

at this point you are trolling. The OP asked how to raise his ac as a druid above the 16. taking advantage of the fact that there is not a single thing that prevents him from using the other medium armors beyond what barkskin can do. The answers are chain shirt, scale, breastplate, or halfplate w/ 14 dex & a shield... scale, breastplate, or halfplate w/ 1+ dex & shield... or just half plate a shield & 10+dex. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact that the only thing preventing him from doing so is that he might want a dismissal of a fluff footnote no longer given penalty, or even a cursory sentence of fluff to justify its reason. Monk & barbarians have very explicit reasons they might not want to wear armor & that reason is "duh, because it's probably worse than naked"; but barbarians have the exact same light & medium armor proficiency as a druid along with an always on no concentration needed ability that will generally be as good if not better than armor.

[FinnS]

those were all on the first page for armored druid d&d. the d&d was only needed to filter out all the wow druids wearing various armors. You can argue about what it looks like until you turn blue, but the fact of the matter is that is entirely irrelevant to the indisputable fact that they were from the first page of a search for: armored druid d&d.

at this point you are trolling. The OP asked how to raise his ac as a druid above the 16. taking advantage of the fact that there is not a single thing that prevents him from using the other medium armors beyond what barkskin can do. The answers are chain shirt, scale, breastplate, or halfplate w/ 14 dex & a shield... scale, breastplate, or halfplate w/ 1+ dex & shield... or just half plate a shield & 10+dex. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact that the only thing preventing him from doing so is that he might want a dismissal of a fluff footnote no longer given penalty, or even a cursory sentence of fluff to justify its reason. Monk & barbarians have very explicit reasons they might not want to wear armor & that reason is "duh, because it's probably worse than naked"; but barbarians have the exact same light & medium armor proficiency as a druid along with an always on no concentration needed ability that will generally be as good if not better than armor.

Actually your answer should begin "If your DM allows it", these are your obvious choices.