Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Citan]

The Sage Advice ruling in no way says that this choice is the players and the players alone. In fact, it specifically says talk to your DM. It also goes to great length to explain why the rule is there so that any DM that is considering house-ruling it knows exactly why they might want to do so, or not do so. For example ...

If you have read calmly you probably would have understood that I never said such thing.

Of course the DM has a say in this.
But it's overboard most cases to define "special armors" just for the sake of "respecting without respecting" the rule.
That is what some people say, because it's impeding the player for no reason.

If someone has a reason to put aside the belief that he shouldn't wear metal armor, and you as a DM consider it's a solid enough one, then just say "you can wear metal" and be done with it.
Everything else is useless pain for both player and DM, unless DM knows that his player will actually be enjoying a specific sidequest to get tailored armor or regular crafting of his own.

In the same regard, saying "you shall never wear metal armor because it's RAW" is totally stupid. The Sage Advice says, black on white, that it's up to each DM to decide, which means that either way it's within RAW.

So you cannot say to someone he's a bad DM just because he would refuse (or allow for that matter).
Nor you can't say he "houserules" his game because he actually allowed a Druid character that would wear metal.

Which is precisely what some hell-bent rule lawyers here are strongly implying.

(I say "you" in a general meaning, not targeting you specifically).

[HolyDraconus]

Yet no one has stated, by rules, what happens to a druid that was dominated and told to wear metal armor? Or was tricked into wearing metal armor. I think all of this wouldn't have been a problem if the word will was exchanged with can. That or some actually rule provided penalties. As is, saying no to a druid in metal armor or trying to give them penalties is actual homebrew.

[Citan]

Yet no one has stated, by rules, what happens to a druid that was dominated and told to wear metal armor? Or was tricked into wearing metal armor. I think all of this wouldn't have been a problem if the word will was exchanged with can. That or some actually rule provided penalties. As is, saying no to a druid in metal armor or trying to give them penalties is actual homebrew.

For that matter, I REALLY don't care about the origin of the fluff, but my vision of the restriction is tightly related to the Wild Shaping.
So as I said, even if I allowed metal armor wearing, I would probably add a restriction on Wild Shape as a consequence (Druid dip = no Wild Shape whatsoever, Druid pure = you can only Wild Shape into smaller forms, and the metal doesn't get merged, instead fall on gound -and you obviously can't "grow back" directly into it when ending the Wild Shape).

[Unoriginal]

Yet no one has stated, by rules, what happens to a druid that was dominated and told to wear metal armor? Or was tricked into wearing metal armor.

A Druid will not wear metal armor voluntarily, but they're not going to be struck by lightning if they do so or suffer from negative modifier. It's just part of the Druidic faith, like learning Druidic or how to shapeshift.

I think all of this wouldn't have been a problem if the word will was exchanged with can. That or some actually rule provided penalties. As is, saying no to a druid in metal armor or trying to give them penalties is actual homebrew.

But that'd defeat the point.

[Cybren]

If you have read calmly you probably would have understood that I never said such thing.

Of course the DM has a say in this.
But it's overboard most cases to define "special armors" just for the sake of "respecting without respecting" the rule.
That is what some people say, because it's impeding the player for no reason.

If someone has a reason to put aside the belief that he shouldn't wear metal armor, and you as a DM consider it's a solid enough one, then just say "you can wear metal" and be done with it.
Everything else is useless pain for both player and DM, unless DM knows that his player will actually be enjoying a specific sidequest to get tailored armor or regular crafting of his own.

In the same regard, saying "you shall never wear metal armor because it's RAW" is totally stupid. The Sage Advice says, black on white, that it's up to each DM to decide, which means that either way it's within RAW.

So you cannot say to someone he's a bad DM just because he would refuse (or allow for that matter).
Nor you can't say he "houserules" his game because he actually allowed a Druid character that would wear metal.

Which is precisely what some hell-bent rule lawyers here are strongly implying.

(I say "you" in a general meaning, not targeting you specifically).

Sage advice isn't RAW, sage advice is a commentary on the rules, but it isn't themselves the rules.

[Tanarii]

If you have read calmly you probably would have understood that I never said such thing.

Okay, that's fair enough. But it's certainly something being implied by other posters. However ...

In the same regard, saying "you shall never wear metal armor because it's RAW" is totally stupid. The Sage Advice says, black on white, that it's up to each DM to decide, which means that either way it's within RAW.

Yes. It's RAW that a DM can override any RAW they want. It's is stupid for a DM to say "you shall never wear metal armor because it's RAW", because that's not the rule. However, it is not stupid for a DM to say "Druids will not wear metal armor, and that includes all characters with the Druid class, including yours, because it's RAW". If he chooses to. Because that is precisely what RAW says, and the Sage Advice in no way changes that.

So you cannot say to someone he's a bad DM just because he would refuse (or allow for that matter).

In all seriousness, I loathe the term Bad DM. I've started blocking anyone I see using it in seriousness, because I'm not interested in reading the posts of someone that thinks like that.

Nor you can't say he "houserules" his game because he actually allowed a Druid character that would wear metal.

Absolutely I can, because that's exactly what said DM has done. RAW is that Druid characters will not wear metal armor. Period. (Edit: probably it'd be better to avoid the term "house-rule" though. For some weird reason it carries some kind of negative, you're doing it wrong, implication. No idea why. Likewise RAW is not some holy grail. All my sentence should mean is "this is what the words say on the page, and some DMs change / ignore that in their game for reasons.)

Which is precisely what some hell-bent rule lawyers here are strongly implying.

Because it's RAW. You can try and label people (like me) who, y'know, are reading the words on the page and call them "hell-bent rule lawyers". But that doesn't change that this is what the words on the page say, in plain ... uh sepia and off-white?

(I say "you" in a general meaning, not targeting you specifically).

Not going to be offended until you tell my I'm a Bad DM or the like. Certainly you can tell me I'm wrong, or you wouldn't want to play at my table, all day long. I can respect that. Edit2: Actually, I'll even go back and say I won't be offended if you say you think it's stupid that I choose to say "Druids will not wear metal armor, and that includes all characters with the Druid class, including yours, because it's RAW." I'm actually okay with you think I'm stupid for sticking to RAW. I am just trying to point out it's literally RAW. Like, not figuratively the words on the page. It's literally the words on the page. So saying it's stupid to say it because it's not RAW is not correct.

[tkuremento]

Sage advice isn't RAW, sage advice is a commentary on the rules, but it isn't themselves the rules.

Sage Advice Compendium: here

"Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."

However I believe this specifically means the Sage Advice specifically on their website and not the .eu one, just for clarification. I am not saying you don't understand, I just don't want people to quote this later and think I was talking about something else.

[Cybren]

Sage Advice Compendium: here

"Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."

However I believe this specifically means the Sage Advice specifically on their website and not the .eu one, just for clarification. I am not saying you don't understand, I just don't want people to quote this later and think I was talking about something else.

Yes, they are official rulings. That is why I said they are a commentary on the RAW and not the RAW themselves. An official ruling isn't RAW, it's a ruling. RAW is one thing and one thing only, the text of the rulebooks.

[tkuremento]

Yes, they are official rulings. That is why I said they are a commentary on the RAW and not the RAW themselves. An official ruling isn't RAW, it's a ruling. RAW is one thing and one thing only, the text of the rulebooks.

Much of what they say becomes errata, is errata then not technically RAW, is RAW only 1st printing?

[Cybren]

It's not errata until it's errata. A ruling isn't errata.

[tkuremento]

It's not errata until it's errata. A ruling isn't errata.

I didn't say rulings are errata, I said much of what they say becomes errata. Then the following applied to JUST the errata and NOT the rulings that aren't errata.

[RickAllison]

Much of what they say becomes errata, is errata then not technically RAW, is RAW only 1st printing?

It only becomes errata if the wording is incompatible or difficult to reconcile with the intended ruling. Such was the case with Glyph of Warding.

[LordVonDerp]

Second of all, luckily for me, I can do it using 5e straight out of the book when it comes to Druids not wearing Metal armor. Because that's the rule in 5e. Let's be clear here. There is a 5e rule for this, and it is that Druids will not wear Metal armor. That's RAW. Done and done. I don't have to add any rules into the game to accomplish it. I'd have to remove a rule out of the game if I wanted to stop "preserving tradition & all about punishing druids for sins of the past".

Show us where it says that a druid can't wear metal armor

Because this
"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"

does not say that it always applies to all druids, does not say that it is a requirement, and does not say what happens if a druid wears it anyway.

[Cybren]

I didn't say rulings are errata, I said much of what they say becomes errata. Then the following applied to JUST the errata and NOT the rulings that aren't errata.

So your argument is that all of sage advice is RAW because some of it eventually might become RAW? I don't really follow

[Unoriginal]

Show us where it says that a druid can't wear metal armor

Because this
"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"

does not say that it always applies to all druids, does not say that it is a requirement, and does not say what happens if a druid wears it anyway.

A Druid CAN wear metal armor. But it's pretty clearly said that they WON'T do it. It's as much part of the druid class as "Druids speak Druidic" or "Druids can shapeshift". Even people who multiclass as Druid won't wear metal armor.

A DM can modify that if they wish to, but the book is pretty clear.

[tkuremento]

So your argument is that all of sage advice is RAW because some of it eventually might become RAW? I don't really follow

Again, that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying a PORTION of the RULINGS becomes ERRATA. That ERRATA gets printed in future printings. The ERRATA (NOT THE NON-ERRATA RULINGS) is RAW in those printings of the book, yes?

[LordVonDerp]

Except that the rules maintained the Druid armor restrictions where it dropped the rest.

Except that those rules weren't maintained. Druids used to lose their powers if they wore metal armor, now nothing happens to them.

[tkuremento]

Show us where it says that a druid can't wear metal armor

Because this
"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"

does not say that it always applies to all druids, does not say that it is a requirement, and does not say what happens if a druid wears it anyway.

will, verb

expressing facts about ability or capacity; expressing habitual behavior; intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen

[Cybren]

Again, that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying a PORTION of the RULINGS becomes ERRATA. That ERRATA gets printed in future printings. The ERRATA (NOT THE NON-ERRATA RULINGS) is RAW in those printings of the book, yes?

Yes but that's 1) tautological and 2) not relevant to my statement that sage advice isn't itself RAW. Playtest material also isn't RAW but it may eventually get published as such.

[LordVonDerp]

A Druid CAN wear metal armor. But it's pretty clearly said that they WON'T do it. It's as much part of the druid class as "Druids speak Druidic" or "Druids can shapeshift". Even people who multiclass as Druid won't wear metal armor.

You're confusing class and character. A character can want something or not want something, they can be opposed to something on principle or not, and they can have opinions on armor, but a class can't have any of that because a class isn't a person, it's just a set of abilities.

Also, fluff in 5e is completely mutable. If you want a breastplate not made of metal just say it's not made of metal. If you want to be from a druid tribe that wear green stained metal breastplates, then just say so.

A DM can modify that if they wish to, but the book is pretty clear.

The book is absolutely clear: there is nothing stopping druids from wearing metal if they want to, and there is no requirement for them to not want to.

[tkuremento]

Yes but that's 1) tautological and 2) not relevant to my statement that sage advice isn't itself RAW. Playtest material also isn't RAW but it may eventually get published as such.

And I am not saying it is all RAW, I am saying a portion of it is RAW when it becomes Errata, that is why I'm asking. I am asking to clarify this point of view, that if it gets printed in a book later then it is RAW, right? I'm sorry if I am not the best with language, it is actually part of a legitimate disability I have. This is why I put emphasis, to try to get the specific point I am trying to make so there isn't any confusion.

[DivisibleByZero]

The book is absolutely clear: there is nothing stopping druids from wearing metal if they want to, and there is no requirement for them to not want to.

You're both right and wrong.
You're right because the book is certainly absolutely clear.
You're wrong because you seem to think that the book saying that DRUIDS WILL NOT WEAR THIS THING somehow means that they will decide to wear it, and that this is perfectly fine.
The rules state that they won't do it. It's actually very simple. They won't. They just won't. It doesn't matter if you want your special snowflake to wear it. If that's the case, you need to talk to your DM, because the rules state that he won't put it on.

[dejarnjc]

will, verb

expressing facts about ability or capacity; expressing habitual behavior; intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen

Given the various definitions of the word "will" it seems that druids CAN in fact wear metal armor.

They just have to 1) not do it habitually [only for adventuring days, not on days off], or 2) not intend to do so [party rogue dressed up some armor to make it look wooden], or 3) not desire to do so [forced/coerced into wearing armor by the party cleric who's sick of wasting money rezzing the druid].

Welp, pack it up boys. Time to go home. Argument settled.

[Cybren]

And I am not saying it is all RAW, I am saying a portion of it is RAW when it becomes Errata, that is why I'm asking. I am asking to clarify this point of view, that if it gets printed in a book later then it is RAW, right? I'm sorry if I am not the best with language, it is actually part of a legitimate disability I have. This is why I put emphasis, to try to get the specific point I am trying to make so there isn't any confusion.

No need to apologize, I just want to be clear that i'm not saying "something in sage advice can't become RAW via later being Incorporated into errata", just that "being in sage advice doesn't make something RAW".

[LordVonDerp]

will, verb

expressing facts about ability or capacity; expressing habitual behavior; intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen

And? I'm sure some druids have no desire to wear metal armor. "Some", not "all".

[Naanomi]

The book is absolutely clear: there is nothing stopping druids from wearing metal if they want to, and there is no requirement for them to not want to.

For people with this opinion: what is the line in the Proficiency section supposed to mean then? If Druids can, and I guess do wear metal armor or use metal shields... why is this line even in the book? What are they trying to communicate here?

[Edgerunner]

Wow things got stirred up in here.

For those who actually answered my OP, Many Thanks. Some great Ideas there.

For those of you who decided to Agree with or Disagree with the wording in the PHB. WOW you all are passionate.
However it amazes me how Stubborn people can get and how some of them refuse to see the other persons view of things.

OK please continue with the " But I do see their side of it. Now here are 7 reasons why they are Wrong and Stupid!" LOL

[LordVonDerp]

Given the various definitions of the word "will" it seems that druids CAN in fact wear metal armor.

They just have to 1) not do it habitually [only for adventuring days, not on days off], or 2) not intend to do so [party rogue dressed up some armor to make it look wooden], or 3) not desire to do so [forced/coerced into wearing armor by the party cleric who's sick of wasting money rezzing the druid].

Welp, pack it up boys. Time to go home. Argument settled.

You forgot
4) wear it because their life is in danger
And
5) wear it because they are not part of the some who have a problem with it.

[Naanomi]

Wow things got stirred up in here.

For those who actually answered my OP, Many Thanks. Some great Ideas there.

For those of you who decided to Agree with or Disagree with the wording in the PHB. WOW you all are passionate.
However it amazes me how Stubborn people can get and how some of them refuse to see the other persons view of things.

OK please continue with the " But I do see their side of it. Now here are 7 reasons why they are Wrong and Stupid!" LOL

Heh the conversation kind of devolved when it seemed the original question was answered to be sure. Essentially:

1) The AC of a Land Druid isn't far off from other full casters in most cases, and is fairly functional if played in that style
2) You may boost it a few points with non-standard armor or an agreeable DM regarding metal armor (but as the discussion of this thread indicates, don't assume either will be a sure thing at every table at the very least)
3) There is always Barkskin if you really need it, but it isn't a great option by most accounts

[tkuremento]

And? I'm sure some druids have no desire to wear metal armor. "Some", not "all".

I was simply showing will, the book says will not, which implies no desire.