Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Vaz]

And all of that is utterly and completely irrelevant, because he flat out refuses to do it.
Some people are vegetarians. They refuse to eat meat. Say whatever you want about the benefits of consuming protein from the flesh of animals, they REFUSE TO DO IT.
That's how a druid feels about metal armor. Those are the rules.
If you want to change it with an houserule, feel free, but don't claim that its allowable by the rules because they used the word "will" instead of the word "can" because that';s the most ridiculous asinine argument I've ever heard.

But what happens if he does? You know, because you are the character, not some dude sat in an office hundreds/thousands of miles away who had to turn in work on a sacred cow to make some money a few years back?

Why does that dude say that your druid will not wear metal armour, but the Cleric of Nature is free to do so? Or the Ranger? And what happens if I break them? Would you allow someone else at your table to tell your Fighter that he can only wear armour made ou of biodegradeable nappies? No, you wouldn't. So why are you allowing what some guy in an office to dictate how your character is played?

If a DM changes the rules to say you cannot cast spells while waering armour, that is a DM changing rules.

It is all well and good saying "Druids will not wear metal armour". But what if they do? What happens if they're unaware? What happens, Derrick?

[DivisibleByZero]

So in the end, lore bard is to absolute worst, then druid is tied to sorcerer, warlock and wizard.

Which is what I said.

They have similar AC to every other caster class' base..

[tkuremento]

Barkskin takes concentration. I mentionned concentration-less methods because concentration can be very important for a full caster.
Studded leather is out of the question because there's metal in it. (in 3.5 for example, they specifically say padded, leather or hide) You're the one arguing that a druid won't wear metal no-matter what. Let's not mix in magic armor cause anyone can wear a +3 elven chain. (well except druid)

So druid have max 13+dex (shield+ leather) or 14+2 (hide+shield, max of 2 dex). (we both forgot to take shields into account)

Lore bard: 12+dex with studded leather (my mistake, didn't think of this one)
Valor bard: 14+dex (shield+studded) or 17+2 (half-plate + shield, max of 2 dex)
Clerics: 14+dex (shield+studded) or 17+2 (half-plate + shield, max of 2 dex)
Sorcerer: 13+dex (mage armor or dragonic)
Warlock: 13+dex (mage armor invocation)
Wizard: 13+dex (mage armor)

So in the end, lore bard is to absolute worst, then druid is tied to sorcerer, warlock and wizard.

Not that it matters, likely, but there are a few things with slightly different variants to add like with Bladesinger and Stone Sorcery.

[DivisibleByZero]

But what happens if he does?

It is all well and good saying "Druids will not wear metal armour". But what if they do? What happens if they're unaware? What happens, Derrick?

He doesn't. Because those are the rules. Anything else is an houserule. Fell free to houserule whatever you like as DM, but don't claim that they can by RAW, because they refuse to do it so whether or not they can is irrelevant.

[Unoriginal]

If you force a metal armor on the druid, nothing would happen. It's just they'll remove it as fast as they can.

[Addaran]

Question! What happens if the party's wizard dominate the druid and make him wear a metal half-plate? You also could have the BBEG Lich having an army of brainwashed druids wearing metal armor. =O

Which is what I said.

Yeah, cause i forgot shields, it's true.

[Unoriginal]

Question! What happens if the party's wizard dominate the druid and make him wear a metal half-plate? You also could have the BBEG Lich having an army of brainwashed druids wearing metal armor.

Nothing happen, aside from having a Druid being pissed off. It's like forcing a vegan to eat meat.

[tkuremento]

Nothing happen, aside from having a Druid being pissed off. It's like forcing a vegan to eat meat.

I'd argue it would be more like trying to make a level 5 vegan eat anything that casts a shadow.

[Tetrasodium]

Question! What happens if the party's wizard dominate the druid and make him wear a metal half-plate? You also could have the BBEG Lich having an army of brainwashed druids wearing metal armor. =O

Since vegetarian comparisons are so popular & armor can be the difference between serious harm & potential death or survival.. the same thing that happens to a vegetarian who survives a plane crash until search & rescue can find the survivors that had been eating whatever wildlife they could catch all those weeks/months/years. In other words they might feel bad about it, but will continue to live successful but harsh lives with less problems than refusing to cross that line would bring.

Edit: and because it's all DividebyZero deserves at this point. Sure a hardline vegetarian could slowly suffer & die from malnutrition by subsiding on a diet of acorn paste & whatever wild edible plants they could find, but malnutrition has side effects that include a number of things that overlap extremely well with concussions, severe blood loss, & poorly treated wounds.

[DivisibleByZero]

Since vegetarian comparisons are so popular & armor can be the difference between serious harm & potential death or survival.. the same thing that happens to a vegetarian who survives a plane crash until search & rescue can find the survivors that had been eating whatever wildlife they could catch all those weeks/months/years. In other words they might feel bad about it, but will continue to live successful but harsh lives with less problems than refusing to cross that line would bring.

If the survivor has no other options, then meat it is.
There are other options for the druid. Rather than putting on armor which may or may not actually be the difference, he can choose simply fall back on his spells, or to not get into melee, or to wild shape, or to not fight at all. Putting on metal armor when he otherwise refuses to is definitely not the same as a vegetarian survivor resorting to meat for sustenance. Not even close.

[Naanomi]

Since vegetarian comparisons are so popular & armor can be the difference between serious harm & potential death or survival.. the same thing that happens to a vegetarian who survives a plane crash until search & rescue can find the survivors that had been eating whatever wildlife they could catch all those weeks/months/years. In other words they might feel bad about it, but will continue to live successful but harsh lives with less problems than refusing to cross that line would bring.

If a Druid was in a situation where wearing metal armor was life or death... maybe as a disguise or when the magical fire immunity of the armor when escaping a volcano trap... I'd give it a pass. But just like that starving vegan, when circumstances normalize I'd expect them to ditch it and get back into more comfortable equipment... the vegan doesn't say 'hey actually meat wasn't that bad!' after their desert island ordeal, and the Druid doesn't say 'metal armor actually looks pretty cool!' after his exceedingly rare escapade in it

[FinnS]

If a DM changes the rules to say you cannot cast spells while waering armour, that is a DM changing rules.

So a player is allowed to change/ignore a rule but the DM isn't? Un huh :headnod:

Regardless, the DM doesn't even have to change any rules if he doesn't want to, not in regards to shapechanging anyway. He can simply follow the one in place...

You choose whether your equipment falls to the
ground in your space, merges into your new form, or
is worn 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

So at the very least, you're going to be running around picking up and re-donning your armor every time you shapechange.

And you know, it sounds like I'm being a hardass about all this but that's not the way I actually am when I DM.
I let players do and use all kinds of creative things to "fix" issues they feel they have.
What I don't do is reward lazy and a Druid "deciding" he will wear metal armor despite that that goes against his class is most definitely lazy and not getting rewarded.
If said Druid wants to take a 1 level dip in Monk or Barbarian to get Unarmored Defence and have that carry over to their shapechanged form...no problem.
If a player wants to go hunt Ankheg's so that they can forge armor out of its carapace, I let them. I allow the carapace to be made into equivalent Breastplate, Half-Plate or Full Plate with 1/5 the weight and resistance to acid damage.

Point being, if a player is willing to work for it either through expenditure of resources (level dip) or time (questing for Ankheg's and an armorer capable of making the armor) I go will go along with any reasonable venture.

[Specter]

Dude, seriously. Just grab a terrain that grants you Mirror Image/Blur. That's the best you can do. This whole 'but what if metal!' debate is neverending and part of other threads.

[RickAllison]

FinnS, the DM decides whether it is practical for a Wild Shape to wear equipment, but the player decides whether it is worn, falls off, or merges. So since the armor couldn't be worn by the animal form (and no one argued that it could), the Druid would just have it merge like normal.

[FinnS]

FinnS, the DM decides whether it is practical for a Wild Shape to wear equipment, but the player decides whether it is worn, falls off, or merges. So since the armor couldn't be worn by the animal form (and no one argued that it could), the Druid would just have it merge like normal.

DM ALWAYS has the final word and if the DM determines that your Wildshape can incorporate some metal like a scimitar or some daggers but that the metal armor is too much to incorporate then it won't be and there's nothing you can do about.
Like I have said repeatedly, you chose the class and knew going in the restrictions when you did so.
Ignoring those restrictions should have ramifications and it's up to the individual DMs to set them.

[Socratov]

And all of that is utterly and completely irrelevant, because he flat out refuses to do it.
Some people are vegetarians. They refuse to eat meat. Say whatever you want about the benefits of consuming protein from the flesh of animals, they REFUSE TO DO IT.
That's how a druid feels about metal armor. Those are the rules.
If you want to change it with an houserule, feel free, but don't claim that its allowable by the rules because they used the word "will" instead of the word "can" because that';s the most ridiculous asinine argument I've ever heard.

Can't and Won;t are different: if the designers did not intend for druids to wear metal armour, then why are they proficient in the first place? It's not as if proficiencies are only used by the group they find themselves in, I mean, weapons can get very specific in some cases (look at the rogue, simple+shortswords+longswords+handcrossbows), so why did they not do that for the druid if they intended for the druid to not be able to wear metal armour? I mean, a simple Light+hide would have sufficed. Hell, as the answer in the Sage advice (or in the earlier linked case the errata) implies the designers themselves are being slightly sarcastic about the whole thing.

Actually, the character refused to don the metal armor in the first place. Why? The PHB says so. You're trying to make an invalid in-character decision, per the PHB, trying to ignore a roleplaying rule. It's a decision you, as the player, are not allowed to make for the character.

Or the DM can just follow the Sage Advice. The character explodes!

That could be a fun character concept: the kamikaze druid... You threaten to wear metal armour and to explode but only if things are dire enough. And when things do, you go out in a blaze of glory.

In all seriousness, if you want to ignore or modify a roleplaying rule, especially one that includes having mechanical consequences, you need to talk to the DM. Just because it's roleplaying rule doesn't mean it's not a rule. There's no special "roleplaying rules are under player control to make all decisions about" rule. Even when they are 100% 'fluff' with no mechanical consequences, which this one is definitely not.

Except that it doesn't the druid does not suddenly gain proficiencies that it otherwise wouldn't. its proficiencies just stays the same.

I'd argue it would be more like trying to make a level 5 vegan eat anything that casts a shadow.

Trees and plants casts shadows, and if you shine a light on a truffle I am sure that it casts a shadow... Or do they survive on the nitrogen in the air? Because that would be seriously impressive...

[FinnS]

Medium armors can be made from materials other than metal so the proficiency argument is null and void.

[Hrugner]

What you really need is an ally with a really good deception skill.
Bard: "Tis ironwood, I swear on my mothers dirty bumkins."
Druid: "It looks like mithril halfplate to me, are you sure."
Bard: "Oh, right you are, that's mithrilwood plain as day. I had a suit like that when I was in college."
Druid: "Okeedokey"

[DivisibleByZero]

Can't and Won;t are different: if the designers did not intend for druids to wear metal armour, then why are they proficient in the first place? It's not as if proficiencies are only used by the group they find themselves in, I mean, weapons can get very specific in some cases (look at the rogue, simple+shortswords+longswords+handcrossbows), so why did they not do that for the druid if they intended for the druid to not be able to wear metal armour? I mean, a simple Light+hide would have sufficed. Hell, as the answer in the Sage advice (or in the earlier linked case the errata) implies the designers themselves are being slightly sarcastic about the whole thing.

They wrote it that way because if you happen to find a breastplate (or anyhitng else that would be medium armor) that isn't made of metal but some other material, such as an ankheg shell, then the druid is proficient with it.
But here's the thing....
...
...
...
...
*NOT IF IT'S MADE OF METAL!!!!!*

And you're right. Can't and won't are different. That's exactly what we've been saying. To you.
They can, but they will not. They choose not to. They refuse to do it. Those are the rules.

[Tanarii]

That could be a fun character concept: the kamikaze druid... You threaten to wear metal armour and to explode but only if things are dire enough. And when things do, you go out in a blaze of glory.

haha time for a new 'monster' stat block methinks

Except that it doesn't the druid does not suddenly gain proficiencies that it otherwise wouldn't. its proficiencies just stays the same.

I wasn't saying anything about proficiencies. I was referring to the rule that a Druid will not wear metal armor. That's a roleplaying rule. You, as a player, cannot make the in-character decision to have your Druid willingly wear metal armor. Because the rule says so.

There's no "or what's the mechanical result", because you can't make that choice. It is taken away from the player by the rule. This roleplaying rule obviously still has mechanical implications ... it's restricting the characters AC, by in-character decision making being pre-defined.

Note: I'm not a huge fan of roleplaying rules that effectively take away player choice on how to make an in-character decision. But it's also equally valid to approach them from the rule telling you how to correctly make this in-character decision. Or the player & DM can ignore it, just as they can modify or ignore ANY rule. But that's not necessarily in the hands of the player alone to do so, was my point. (Nor is it in a reasonable DMs hands alone to be an hardline ******* about it of course.) so ... check with your DM if you want to change it.

[Tetrasodium]

So a player is allowed to change/ignore a rule but the DM isn't? Un huh :headnod:

Regardless, the DM doesn't even have to change any rules if he doesn't want to, not in regards to shapechanging anyway. He can simply follow the one in place...

You choose whether your equipment falls to the
ground in your space, merges into your new form, or
is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal,
but the DM [only]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

So at the very least, you're going to be running around picking up and re-donning your armor every time you shapechange.

And you know, it sounds like I'm being a hardass about all this but that's not the way I actually am when I DM.
I let players do and use all kinds of creative things to "fix" issues they feel they have.
What I don't do is reward lazy and a Druid "deciding" he will wear metal armor despite that that goes against his class is most definitely lazy and not getting rewarded.
If said Druid wants to take a 1 level dip in Monk or Barbarian to get Unarmored Defence and have that carry over to their shapechanged form...no problem.
If a player wants to go hunt Ankheg's so that they can forge armor out of its carapace, I let them. I allow the carapace to be made into equivalent Breastplate, Half-Plate or Full Plate with 1/5 the weight and resistance to acid damage.

Point being, if a player is willing to work for it either through expenditure of resources (level dip) or time (questing for Ankheg's and an armorer capable of making the armor) I go will go along with any reasonable venture.

You aren't going to be running around picking up your equipment because you as the player of the druid get to decide what parts of your equipment merges with the new form as RickAllison pointed out despite fins not bothering to read the whole section when he tried to rely on his knowledge of 3.5 & ad&d, which have forums here & here. As was pointed out earlier, the gm in an AL game cannot create rules to punish a druid who feels metal armor fits perfectly well with their non-flowerchild non-3.5 non-ad&d druid. The druid is not creating any rules, just rejecting a bit of fluff that every other class no longer needs to be shackled with up to & including rogues in plate mail with a maul & shield using uncanny dodge or evasion. (there are multiple ways to get those proficiency & not all involve multiclass, so a pure rogue could still do it).

[i]Ironically[i], the same rule that prevent a gm from punishing the druid in an AL game also prevents a druid from saying I want to "go hunt Ankheg's so that I can forge armor out of its carapace" due to that fact unlike his ad&d/3.5 games, there are no feats or rules for crafting like that in 5e that sort of thing & the closest equivalent (artisan's tools) lack the ability to bridge that gap. while the player could just declare that the $metal armor they purchase was made out of wood or something, but he as the GM in an AL game could not say it has "with 1/5 the weight and resistance to acid damage." because of the rule in question. This is also the same rule that prevents a sad sorry cartmanesque gm like Finns from deciding to house rule that a player cannot merge metal armor into his or her form if the GM decides it the new form cannot fit it (which the gm can decide)& they can not (which is significantly different from will not) make that decision because the player explicitly decides what merges, is worn, & what falls to the groyund. To further underscore that * the fact that he apparently has never even glanced at the AL rules. the only magic items you can really craft in AL is entirely limited to the 50 gp potion in the phb that heals 1d4+1 hp , to make that piddly healing potion takes 10 days downtime & 25gp before adding living expenses yo bring it back close to (of not more than) the original 50gp 0 downtime cost.


Clearly some of the loudest "but back in ad&d/3.5" folks are barely familiar with 5th edition, AL, or even bothering to read some of the rules they themselves are requoting

[Spellbreaker26]

Clearly some of the loudest "but back in ad&d/3.5" folks are barely familiar with 5th edition, AL, or even bothering to read some of the rules they themselves are requoting

Clearly this is not a "back in the ad&d" days thing because that rule is *still there*. Poorly implemented (a simple resolution would be to make it so druids can never count as proficient in metal armour) but still there nonetheless. It is part of the core rules and to do otherwise is a homebrew rule. A quick word with the DM should sort that out, but any DM is still 100% within his rights to turn that idea down and tell the player to just roll up a Nature Cleric instead.

[FinnS]

You aren't going to be running around picking up your equipment because you as the player of the druid get to decide what parts of your equipment merges with the new form as RickAllison pointed out despite fins not bothering to read the whole section when he tried to rely on his knowledge of 3.5 & ad&d, which have forums here & here. As was pointed out earlier, the gm in an AL game cannot create rules to punish a druid who feels metal armor fits perfectly well with their non-flowerchild non-3.5 non-ad&d druid. The druid is not creating any rules, just rejecting a bit of fluff that every other class no longer needs to be shackled with up to & including rogues in plate mail with a maul & shield using uncanny dodge or evasion. (there are multiple ways to get those proficiency & not all involve multiclass, so a pure rogue could still do it).

[i]Ironically[i], the same rule that prevent a gm from punishing the druid in an AL game also prevents a druid from saying I want to "go hunt Ankheg's so that I can forge armor out of its carapace" due to that fact unlike his ad&d/3.5 games, there are no feats or rules for crafting like that in 5e that sort of thing & the closest equivalent (artisan's tools) lack the ability to bridge that gap. while the player could just declare that the $metal armor they purchase was made out of wood or something, but he as the GM in an AL game could not say it has "with 1/5 the weight and resistance to acid damage." because of the rule in question. This is also the same rule that prevents a sad sorry cartmanesque gm like Finns from deciding to house rule that a player cannot merge metal armor into his or her form if the GM decides it the new form cannot fit it (which the gm can decide)& they can not (which is significantly different from will not) make that decision because the player explicitly decides what merges, is worn, & what falls to the groyund. To further underscore that * the fact that he apparently has never even glanced at the AL rules. the only magic items you can really craft in AL is entirely limited to the 50 gp potion in the phb that heals 1d4+1 hp , to make that piddly healing potion takes 10 days downtime & 25gp before adding living expenses yo bring it back close to (of not more than) the original 50gp 0 downtime cost.


Clearly some of the loudest "but back in ad&d/3.5" folks are barely familiar with 5th edition, AL, or even bothering to read some of the rules they themselves are requoting

Great argument, seriously it really was.
Only one sliiiight problem...You have put the cart before the horse unfortunately.
Everything you just argued for why a DM is limited in AL play in what he can or can't allow also handcuffs both him and/or a player from ignoring the PHB as well.
Basically nothing you just said would apply because there would be no issue in the first place.
The AL isn't some homebrew setting, it's based in the FR and in the FR, Druids don't wear metal armor.

You guys can keep going with all this circular BS till you're blue in the face but the bottom line is that, for like the 12th time, YOU knew the restrictions for the class before YOU chose it.
End of story!

[RickAllison]

Clearly this is not a "back in the ad&d" days thing because that rule is *still there*. Poorly implemented (a simple resolution would be to make it so druids can never count as proficient in metal armour) but still there nonetheless. It is part of the core rules and to do otherwise is a homebrew rule. A quick word with the DM should sort that out, but any DM is still 100% within his rights to turn that idea down and tell the player to just roll up a Nature Cleric instead.

Honestly, I think one of biggest of resistance for the rule is because, as has been pointed out by both sides, it is a roleplaying rule. Even Paladins give leeway in the sense that the tenets of their oaths are very flexible and vague enough to work for a variety of characters, but this one is not. It declares that no matter what Druid you make, or even if they aren't a Druid in the actual world, they are forced to believe that worked metal is anathema to be worn (though not to use...).

The dwarf Druid of the mountain who is heavily invested in metals from the same? Nope. The multiclasser who was cast out of the Druidic order for believing that they needed to aggressively defend the forests? Nope. The rogue assassin who infiltrated the order and learned their techniques solely so he could use the shapeshifting to murder more adeptly? Nope, and he has nothing in common in terms of actual beliefs with the Druids.

It's not a balance rule, or patching an exploit. It only serves to restrict a character without a real reason. Every similar restriction in the book is optional, but apparently not this one. It would be like if the Warlocks had a rule saying "You must always lust for more power." Both are arbitrary role playing restrictions.

[Tetrasodium]

Great argument, seriously it really was.
Only one sliiiight problem...You have put the cart before the horse unfortunately.
Everything you just argued for why a DM is limited in AL play in what he can or can't allow also handcuffs both him and/or a player from ignoring the PHB as well.
Basically nothing you just said would apply because there would be no issue in the first place.
The AL isn't some homebrew setting, it's based in the FR and in the FR, Druids don't wear metal armor.

You guys can keep going with all this circular BS till you're blue in the face but the bottom line is that, for like the 12th time, YOU knew the restrictions for the class before YOU chose it.
End of story!

Yes Cartman, which goes back to a sad little gm like you yourself practically admitted was only for devils advocate has only the option of "I refuse to allow you to decide that your character is willing to make that choice & you will respect my authoratah". GM's who emulate that aspect of cartman tend to not last very long as players tend to migrate away from it.

[Sigreid]

Clearly the solution is for the druid to glue armadillos to himself.

[Unoriginal]

Clearly the solution is for the druid to glue armadillos to himself.

A case of armadillos?

[Naanomi]

Yes Cartman, which goes back to a sad little gm like you yourself practically admitted was only for devils advocate has only the option of "I refuse to allow you to decide that your character is willing to make that choice & you will respect my authoratah". GM's who emulate that aspect of cartman tend to not last very long as players tend to migrate away from it.

What a strange picture of the collaborative process that if a GM says 'uh don't the rules say you can't really do that'; your response is 'how dare you stifle my creativity which is in no way a power grab; I'm outta here!'

Druids not wearing metal is at the very least the default setting assumption... has it come up in any game that a player feels upset by this in a way that isn't a clear grab for a few more AC?

[Sigreid]

A case of armadillos?

However many it takes. Halfling druids require less, Goliath druids require more.

[Matticusrex]

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