Irhtos Sauriv's guide to front line druidism

[Arkhios]

Not only is English my first language, but I studied to be an English teacher in decades past.
You said that he claimed that it wasn't a mechanical rule.
All rules are mechanical. If it doesn't restrict or guide game mechanics, then it doesn't need a rule, does it?
So you're claiming that he said that it wasn't a rule.

I guess I shouldn't assume that everyone possesses English as a first language.

Oh mighty english teacher, tell us the difference between statements "won't wear metal armor" and "can't wear metal armor" since apparently we non-english-teachers don't understand english?

Will not (won't) ≠ Can not (can't).

[DivisibleByZero]

Will not (won't) ≠ Can not (can't).

First of all, you can drop your holier than thou attitude. I was merely responding in kind.
Secondly, you're right, will not and can not are different. Whether they can or not is irrelevant, because the rules say that they won't. They refuse.

I can stab myself in the eye with a letter opener. But I will not. So whether or not I can is irrelevant.

[Astofel]

Guys let's not do this again. Can we just forget about whether or not druids can wear metal armour by RAW and assume they can for the purposes of this guide, since that's what the guide's assuming? Seriously the last time this happened 20 pages went by with no progress and a whole bunch of pointless back-and-forth. I'd rather not see a second thread derailed by druid armour.

Anyway, Tetrasodium, I recommend you use the commonly accepted colour ranking system when it comes to evaluating the druid's options. Not only does it make it immediately clear what your opinion is, but it breaks up the wall of text and makes it much easier to read.

[LudicSavant]

I think some people take inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines a bit more seriously than they are intended, especially given that the developer of the game has said that "you're not going to break anything in the game system" by wearing metal armor, and that druidic orders merely have a taboo against wearing metal rather than druids possessing an actual inability to do so. People break taboos sometimes. It is a thing that people do.

Even if, for whatever reason, your DM does not allow your druid to wear metal armor, the developer of the game has also stated that there is the possibility of finding suits of armor usually constructed out of metals being constructed out of other materials. If non-metal heavy armor is available, the ability to wear metal is a moot point.

If your DM allows neither of these things, that's fine. But that's no reason to go around giving the OP a hard time about it.

Just for fun / as a thought experiment, I decided to look up other instances of the word "will" in the PHB and interpret it in the same way that some people seem to think that the Druid is supposed to interpret it (e.g. claiming that any words in the rulebook concerning fluff or story are not general statements in common language, but hard mechanical prescriptions that permit no exceptions barring houserules). Our group got a good laugh out of it

Spoiler: Silliness

Show

I don't part with my money easily and will haggle tirelessly to get the best deal possible.

> A player with this personality trait is surprised that their character is not immune to Exhaustion while seeking to get the best deal possible for days on end, and complains that the rules are being broken.

Ruthless pirates murdered my captain and crewmates, plundered our ship, and left me to die. Vengeance will be mine.

>Player complains to DM that he didn't get vengeance when he fails to defeat the pirates in battle. After all, the rules said that he would achieve vengeance, not merely attempt it!

Power. If I can attain more power, no one will tell me what to do.

>Player complains to DM that even though they attained more power, NPCs were still telling them what to do!

A noble title doesn't stand on its own-it's connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children.

>What? You dishonored your house and were stripped of your noble title? Clearly this DM is breaking away from the rules. The rules say that I will pass it down to my children! What's with these weird houserules?

Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children's children will always be held accountable.

>You heard the rules guys, you're not allowed to not be racist to the tieflings! You will always hold them accountable for something they didn't do. No exceptions; it's the rules!

[dejarnjc]

You heard the rules guys, you're not allowed to not be racist to the tieflings! You will always hold them accountable for something they didn't do. No exceptions; it's the rules!

I got a good laugh about this one, thanks!

[NNescio]

I think some people take inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines a bit more seriously than they are intended, especially given that the developer of the game has said that "you're not going to break anything in the game system" by wearing metal armor, and that druidic orders merely have a taboo against wearing metal rather than druids possessing an actual inability to do so. People break taboos sometimes. It is a thing that people do.

Even if, for whatever reason, your DM does not allow your druid to wear metal armor, the developer of the game has also stated that there is the possibility of finding suits of armor usually constructed out of metals being constructed out of other materials. If non-metal heavy armor is available, the ability to wear metal is a moot point.

If your DM allows neither of these things, that's fine. But that's no reason to go around giving the OP a hard time about it.

Just for fun / as a thought experiment, I decided to look up other instances of the word "will" in the PHB and interpret it in the same way that some people seem to think that the Druid is supposed to interpret it (e.g. claiming that any words in the rulebook concerning fluff or story are not general statements in common language, but hard mechanical prescriptions that permit no exceptions barring houserules). Our group got a good laugh out of it

Spoiler: Silliness

Show

> A player with this personality trait is surprised that their character is not immune to Exhaustion while seeking to get the best deal possible for days on end, and complains that the rules are being broken.


>Player complains to DM that he didn't get vengeance when he fails to defeat the pirates in battle. After all, the rules said that he would achieve vengeance, not merely attempt it!


>Player complains to DM that even though they attained more power, NPCs were still telling them what to do!


>What? You dishonored your house and were stripped of your noble title? Clearly this DM is breaking away from the rules. The rules say that I will pass it down to my children! What's with these weird houserules?


>You heard the rules guys, you're not allowed to not be racist to the tieflings! You will always hold them accountable for something they didn't do. No exceptions; it's the rules!

To me, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" isn't just fluff or story backgrounds because it is not listed in the intro description section of a class (which technically contradicts itself anyway if held as a prescription because no character can fulfill all of the examples given), backgrounds, ideals, bonds, etc., BUT under the proficiencies list of the class, a CLEAR-CUT mechanics and rules section. It is not "inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines". That would be a false equivalence.

Heck, even the 5e System Reference Document retains the rule "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", so it is part of the basic rule set. The SRD is otherwise devoid of fluff and flavor (other than the usual trait/ideal/bond/flaw, which are "suggested characteristics"), as they were deliberately stripped from the SRD (as is the case in past editions) since they are part of the DnD trademark (you can permit others to use your copyright, but permitting others to use your trademark [without strict licensing agreements] weakens your trademark).

This isn't the same as "Barbarians hate cities" or "Bards must always play music" that people were all in a furor on the other threads. Those can be argued to be fluff and part of the background flavor (and hence more mutable than mechanics). "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"? It's in the SRD, under a clear mechanics section for Druid class, listed under its list of proficiencies.

Now, just because the Druid won't wear metal armor (a limitation on the volition of the character, like Charm and Dominate spells, but this part is implicitly chosen when the player picks the Druid class) doesn't mean the DM can't houserule it away or provide easy access to alternative materials (ironwood armor was a perennial favorite in past editions, and the 5e DMG has a few non-metallic armors).

[DivisibleByZero]

To me, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" isn't just fluff or story backgrounds because it is not listed in the intro description section of a class (which technically contradicts itself anyway if held as a prescription because no character can fulfill all of the examples given), backgrounds, ideals, bonds, etc., BUT under the proficiencies list of the class, a CLEAR-CUT mechanics and rules section. It is not "inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines". That would be a false equivalence.

Heck, even the 5e System Reference Document retains the rule "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", so it is part of the basic rule set. The SRD is otherwise devoid of fluff and flavor (other than the usual trait/ideal/bond/flaw, which are "suggested characteristics"), as they were deliberately stripped from the SRD (as is the case in past editions) since they are part of the DnD trademark (you can permit others to use your copyright, but permitting others to use your trademark [without strict licensing agreements] weakens your trademark).

This isn't the same as "Barbarians hate cities" or "Bards must always play music" that people were all in a furor on the other threads. Those can be argued to be fluff and part of the background flavor (and hence more mutable than mechanics). "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"? It's in the SRD, under a clear mechanics section for Druid class, listed under its list of proficiencies.

Now, just because the Druid won't wear metal armor (a limitation on the volition of the character, like Charm and Dominate spells, but this part is implicitly chosen when the player picks the Druid class) doesn't mean the DM can't houserule it away or provide easy access to alternative materials (ironwood armor was a perennial favorite in past editions, and the 5e DMG has a few non-metallic armors).

In before:

No.
Because my druid doesn't care about sacred cows and the rules don't apply to me because "reasons" and any DM who imposes rules which are clearly laid out in multiple places is a BadDm.

[Tetrasodium]

{scrubbed}

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Probably because you wrote a "Guide" for a build which is based upon the assumption that you and your DM are going to ignore the rules.
Hold on while I write my "guide" on what to do with five Reactions in a round.
Here's the build:

Spoiler

Show

It's based off a an house rule, and not even a widely accepted one.... it doesn't need a guide

Incidentally, you should remove the PEACH tag from your sig linking this thread.
My Honest Evaluation that your entire guide is based upon the premise that you and your DM should ignore the rules is met with calls of Troll and shrieking flames.
You then go so far as to claim that in the event that your DM follows and will not allow you to break clear rules, that you should find a new DM.
You don't want PEACH. You want people to read this and fall all over themselves thanking you for such amazing and original insight.

[dejarnjc]

I'd have to talk to my DM before playing a chaotic evil character. I don't think it'd be a problem or unreasonable to talk to most DMs about whether or not your druid can wear metal or find a metal alternative. It hardly breaks the game.

[Ursus the Grim]

To me, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" isn't just fluff or story backgrounds because it is not listed in the intro description section of a class (which technically contradicts itself anyway if held as a prescription because no character can fulfill all of the examples given), backgrounds, ideals, bonds, etc., BUT under the proficiencies list of the class, a CLEAR-CUT mechanics and rules section. It is not "inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines". That would be a false equivalence.

Heck, even the 5e System Reference Document retains the rule "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", so it is part of the basic rule set. The SRD is otherwise devoid of fluff and flavor (other than the usual trait/ideal/bond/flaw, which are "suggested characteristics"), as they were deliberately stripped from the SRD (as is the case in past editions) since they are part of the DnD trademark (you can permit others to use your copyright, but permitting others to use your trademark [without strict licensing agreements] weakens your trademark).

Shifting the conversation away from strawmen and nasty attitudes, I'd like to propose a problem with this rule. And again, its a rule. I'm not arguing that it isn't (or calling it a sacred cow or telling anyone they're a BadDM).

A druid knows how to wear Half-Plate. They are, technically, proficient in its use. How do we rationalize their knowledge and familiarity with metal armors if they will not (and presumably have not) ever wear (or worn) it? Do we assume that fledgling druids all spend some time in Crystalline Breastplates and Fungal Half-Plates? Do most of the druids in your world come from a more mundane, martial background where they once wore metal armor?

[DivisibleByZero]

Shifting the conversation away from strawmen and nasty attitudes, I'd like to propose a problem with this rule. And again, its a rule. I'm not arguing that it isn't (or calling it a sacred cow or telling anyone they're a BadDM).

A druid knows how to wear Half-Plate. They are, technically, proficient in its use. How do we rationalize their knowledge and familiarity with metal armors if they will not (and presumably have not) ever worn it? Do we assume that fledgling druids all spend some time in Crystalline Breastplates and Fungal Half-Plates? Do most of the druids in your world come from a more mundane, martial background where they once wore metal armor?

Armor is separated into categories: Light, Medium, Heavy.
If you have training in one type, the rest from that category work in similar fashion and you know how they function. So the fact that a Druid is familiar with Hide means that he knows how a Breastplate functions. That doesn't mean that he's willing to put a metal breastplate on, just that it works similarly enough to Hide that he understands its use.
If he happens to find a set made of a non-metal, then he knows how to use it.
Full plate? It's more armor than he's accustomed to, and he can't function in it at his full capacity, no matter what it's made of.

[Ursus the Grim]

Armor is separated into categories: Light, Medium, Heavy.
If you have training in one type, the rest from that category work in similar fashion and you know how they function. So the fact that a Druid is familiar with Hide means that he knows how a Breastplate functions. That doesn't mean that he's willing to put a metal breastplate on, just that it works similarly enough to Hide that he understands its use.
If he happens to find a set made of a non-metal, then he knows how to use it.
Full plate? It's more armor than he's accustomed to, and he can't function in it at his full capacity, no matter what it's made of.

So 12 pounds of 'thick furs and pelts' are close enough to 40 pounds of 'shaped metal plates with greaves' that proficiency is applicable between them without any training in the latter?

I don't agree, but I think I see what you're saying.

[DivisibleByZero]

So 12 pounds of 'thick furs and pelts' are close enough to 40 pounds of 'shaped metal plates with greaves' that proficiency is applicable between them without any training in the latter?

I don't agree, but I think I see what you're saying.

Has every fighter personally spent weeks/months/years training with every single weapon known to man?
No. But his martial training is such that the weapons he has trained with have prepared him for the ones that he has not.
The Cleric probably hasn't specifically trained with every single simple weapon on the list either, but his training with a few of them prepared him for the rest. That training did not prepare him to swing a greatsword. It has a different balance point and uses different techniques that he is unfamiliar with.

It's the same idea here. The Druid's use of Hide has prepared him to use other medium armors, even if he refuses to do so if it's made of metal, but he is prepared to use it if he finds it made from another material.

[RickAllison]

Has every fighter personally spent weeks/months/years training with every single weapon known to man?
No. But his martial training is such that the weapons he has trained with have prepared him for the ones that he has not.
The Cleric probably hasn't specifically trained with every single simple weapon on the list either, but his training with a few of them prepared him for the rest. That training did not prepare him to swing a greatsword. It has a different balance point and uses different techniques that he is unfamiliar with.

It's the same idea here. The Druid's use of Hide has prepared him to use other medium armors, even if he refuses to do so if it's made of metal, but he is prepared to use it if he finds it made from another material.

Adding onto this, it is about the technique. Shins the attacks as well. Fighters have learned styles that apply to just about any weapon, but the rogue's combat is only applicable to lighter and simpler tools, or the longsword. And then the monk can't do much of anything beyond the weapons he has specifically trained with.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think some people take inexact fluffy descriptions or guidelines a bit more seriously than they are intended, especially given that the developer of the game has said that "you're not going to break anything in the game system" by wearing metal armor, and that druidic orders merely have a taboo against wearing metal rather than druids possessing an actual inability to do so. People break taboos sometimes. It is a thing that people do.

Even if, for whatever reason, your DM does not allow your druid to wear metal armor, the developer of the game has also stated that there is the possibility of finding suits of armor usually constructed out of metals being constructed out of other materials. If non-metal heavy armor is available, the ability to wear metal is a moot point.

If your DM allows neither of these things, that's fine. But that's no reason to go around giving the OP a hard time about it.

Just for fun / as a thought experiment, I decided to look up other instances of the word "will" in the PHB and interpret it in the same way that some people seem to think that the Druid is supposed to interpret it (e.g. claiming that any words in the rulebook concerning fluff or story are not general statements in common language, but hard mechanical prescriptions that permit no exceptions barring houserules). Our group got a good laugh out of it

Spoiler: Silliness

Show

> A player with this personality trait is surprised that their character is not immune to Exhaustion while seeking to get the best deal possible for days on end, and complains that the rules are being broken.


>Player complains to DM that he didn't get vengeance when he fails to defeat the pirates in battle. After all, the rules said that he would achieve vengeance, not merely attempt it!


>Player complains to DM that even though they attained more power, NPCs were still telling them what to do!


>What? You dishonored your house and were stripped of your noble title? Clearly this DM is breaking away from the rules. The rules say that I will pass it down to my children! What's with these weird houserules?


>You heard the rules guys, you're not allowed to not be racist to the tieflings! You will always hold them accountable for something they didn't do. No exceptions; it's the rules!

Ludic... this is almost exactly what I was going to respond with, except I haven't had a chance to look through the PHB for examples of "will" usage. But yeah, I agree 100%.

DivisibleByZero, What is your goal here? We all know what the words say, we all know what the developers said, we all know the assumptions in the OP. What are you looking to achieve by continuing to disrupt the thread? We know your take on druids and metal armors but... it's irrelevant to the thread and detracting from what the OP is looking to accomplish.

[tieren]

When I had my druid our DM was pretty cool with the ruling.

We agreed all armor has some metal in it, even straight leather will have buckles and clasps. So the question became one of degree.

We agreed plate, even half plate, wasn't appropriate to the setting. A breastplate however on mostly otherwise leather armor would be ok. We also allowed scale mail, not because it doesn't have a lot of metal in it but due to the similarity to dragon scale mail which would be allowed.

Just talk to your DM, most will probably be reasonable.

[DivisibleByZero]

What are you looking to achieve by continuing to disrupt the thread? We know your take on druids and metal armors but... it's irrelevant to the thread and detracting from what the OP is looking to accomplish.

What the OP is looking to accomplish?
Here are excerpts from what is approximately the first 10% or so of the OP:

& people lose their Yarking **** while perhaps starting to froth at the mouth if you suggest that doing otherwise is not only possible but an extremely reasonable process.

Sadly, it's imperative to ask your gm if he or she will even let you play a druid not fitting the mold of dawnflower honeyblossom the tree hugger.

holdover based on older editions & dead mechanics

sacred cows

the sacred cow of metal armor wear revoking all druid powers for 24 hours was shot in the head; but unfortunately the bullet missed the brain & the sacred cow was left squealing "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of Metal" on the ground.

If you talk to your gm & he or she says they think the "rule" is stupid so you can wear it just fine or "nonmetal medium/heavy armor is dirt common/the norm"... great, problem solved. front line druidry might be right for you!

a gm to just shriek something like "it says will not, your druid will never want to, end of discussion" before devolving into all manner of ridiculous suggestions

"but rare is totally different from 'effectively none so it's ok for me to mislead my players & their fault if they expect to take me at my word with not none being reasonably common'" crowd refuses to answer questions & eventually flees the topic entirely.

a technicality obfuscated to the point of practically being a lie if you take them at their word

Once again, Unless your gm says something like "pfft, sure, I think the no metal is stupid in 5th", prepare to play "moonbeam dawnflower, lover of trees" or even better pick some other class.

but I honestly don’t give a bleep & neither should you.

may the mods be quick, merciless, & aggressive with moderation of this guide's thread.

What the OP is looking to accomplish is to ignore the rules, and basically claim that people who follow the rules are all idiots. Then he calls everyone who may disagree a Troll who is "shrieking flames" and says that if your DM actually wants to follow the rules then you need to find a new DM.
And then the OP has the gall to place the word PEACH next to the link to this thread in his sig....
But I'm the one that's being disruptive. Right.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes, you are.

He has made an assumption in the OP. The guide assumes that you can wear medium armor better than Hide. Since the DEVs said go ahead and ask your DM about it, it isn't disruptive to the game, he's basing the build off that assumption.

So, if you're going to PEACH it, it would be within the constraints of that assumption.

Really, there is no argument for you here. Everyone knows what it says under the Druid's proficiencies. This is a build guide for the games when the DM allows you to ignore that bit. {scrubbed}

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrubbed}

[Dr.Samurai]

I did not participate in any thread about druid armor previous to this but... it seems to me from the OP that his language is a response to people simply not allowing the idea of druids in metal armor, despite the word of god on the matter.

Are you suggesting that had he been polite in his OP, you wouldn't be stuck on this issue of metal armor??? Because I'm not getting that vibe at all. I think his OP is a reaction to responses like yours, not the other way around.

In other words... if people were ok with letting DMs rule a druid can wear metal armor, there would be little reason to exaggerate about people worshiping sacred cows and losing their ****.

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrubbed}

[Ursus the Grim]

So, really this is where we are.

OP's guide operates under the premise that your DM will houserule Druid armor.
OP makes his, uh, passion regarding this matter quite apparent.
Little is said regarding the actual guide.
Instead, arguments take place regarding the premise and assumption, possibly triggered by OP's tone.

. . . I think I'm done here.

[Maxilian]

Couldn't this debate have ended if we go with the:

-My druid is a Woodworker, he knows the a lot about the many different types of woods that exist, including many of the different races that came from the Faewilds, he uses the bark of many of this magical threes to create magical imbued weapons and armor.

Armor is Heavy armor made out of wood, DONE!. (Would need to talk with the DM, but there is no reason for there not to exist a non-metal heavy armor)

[Tetrasodium]

Couldn't this debate have ended if we go with the:

-My druid is a Woodworker, he knows the a lot about the many different types of woods that exist, including many of the different races that came from the Faewilds, he uses the bark of many of this magical threes to create magical imbued weapons and armor.

Armor is Heavy armor made out of wood, DONE!. (Would need to talk with the DM, but there is no reason for there not to exist a non-metal heavy armor)

Probably, but I think that "nonmetal medium/heavy armor is dirt common/the norm"... great, problem solved. " covers that kind of situation for mundane armor leaving the warning of what that could entail over time. Some people were upset that someone might feel an extra 2-3 ac was important enough to make an issue about it previously, but a +3 shield with +3 armor is +6 AC & that might be a significant thing as you move closer & closer to 20. While Hide is unquestionably nonmetal, at 14 or less dex it's equal to studded leather; but at 16+ dex it's unquestionably worse. nobody would recommend a strength based fighter limit themselves to light armor & its equivalent in a guide & there is no reason to do the same for a wis+con&dex based druid.
I don't deny that a GM has the right to say no & can even do that in a way that's perfectly reasonable (both I've said more than once elsewhere); but a guide should make a player aware of the risks & warning signs involved with a "sorta" type answer.

[Maxilian]

Probably, but I think that "nonmetal medium/heavy armor is dirt common/the norm"... great, problem solved. " covers that kind of situation for mundane armor leaving the warning of what that could entail over time. Some people were upset that someone might feel an extra 2-3 ac was important enough to make an issue about it previously, but a +3 shield with +3 armor is +6 AC & that might be a significant thing as you move closer & closer to 20. While Hide is unquestionably nonmetal, at 14 or less dex it's equal to studded leather; but at 16+ dex it's unquestionably worse. nobody would recommend a strength based fighter limit themselves to light armor & its equivalent in a guide & there is no reason to do the same for a wis+con&dex based druid.
I don't deny that a GM has the right to say no & can even do that in a way that's perfectly reasonable (both I've said more than once elsewhere); but a guide should make a player aware of the risks & warning signs involved with a "sorta" type answer.

Well the Shield (be it +3 or Cursed) is not a problem (being a metal or not, is irrelevant for the AC it gives) also i think that the Shield can be used by a Druid even if its made out of metal (Just like weapons).

And the problem of +X items, is not really a problem having in mind that the person that could have problem with it, its also the one handing them (The DM) so if the DM doesn't want you to have X item, you won't, simple as that.

Note: I get your point, but it still remains in the "DM decide" (IMHO i do think that Druids could use metal, but i understand the problem with it)

[Submortimer]

Okay, look: Your assertion that Shillelagh, and by extension polearm master, are useless for a frontline druid is asinine. If you are not going moon druid, It is literally the only way for them to get an additional attack, and the simple fact that you can do it with a quarterstaff, one handed, while holding a shield, makes it one of the BETTER options on the list.

Poison spray is a joke. Save or nothing effects, especially those that target a Con save, are borderline worthless at higher levels and against bigger monsters, not to mention that there are 45 monsters in the book with resistance to poison and 95 with flat immunity to it. By contrast, nothing is immune to getting hit with a magic weapon.

Thorn whip is fine, but you will literally always be doing less average damage damage than by just hitting them twice with your magic quarter staff. If the range is what you like because it allows you to stay out of harms way, THEN WHY ARE YOU FRONTLINING?

The biggest problem that I have with this whole concept is that it is MAD as hell, and isn't really that effective, not when compared to a Moon druid. You argue for doing things like getting heavy armor, but then spec for Dex. It's inefficient, unfocused, and really not worth the time.

[Maxilian]

Okay, look: Your assertion that Shillelagh, and by extension polearm master, are useless for a frontline druid is asinine. If you are not going moon druid, It is literally the only way for them to get an additional attack, and the simple fact that you can do it with a quarterstaff, one handed, while holding a shield, makes it one of the BETTER options on the list.

I agree, though you will start feeling weak as everyone else gets more attack or more things to increase the attack; Though if you for some reason MC into Monk, is less usefull -As you will also get a Bonus action-) also the main point of SL is to make the build less MAD (Something that the OP don't have in mind)

Poison spray is a joke. Save or nothing effects, especially those that target a Con save, are borderline worthless at higher levels and against bigger monsters, not to mention that there are 45 monsters in the book with resistance to poison and 95 with flat immunity to it. By contrast, nothing is immune to getting hit with a magic weapon.

I have to agree with you (sadly, cause i really love the Poison theme), Poison damage in general, is not that good (way too many mobs that just laught at it)

Thorn whip is fine, but you will literally always be doing less average damage damage than by just hitting them twice with your magic quarter staff. If the range is what you like because it allows you to stay out of harms way, THEN WHY ARE YOU FRONTLINING?

Unless you can somehow use it while in the air so the enemy will take an extra 1d6 fall damage (and fall prone) -How will you do it, who knows-

The biggest problem that I have with this whole concept is that it is MAD as hell, and isn't really that effective, not when compared to a Moon druid. You argue for doing things like getting heavy armor, but then spec for Dex. It's inefficient, unfocused, and really not worth the time.

Yeah, it feels more like those, "the moment allowed this build" than anything else (I'm looking at that Druid that, FOR SOME REASON, got the Giant Guantlets)

[Submortimer]

I agree, though you will start feeling weak as everyone else gets more attack or more things to increase the attack; Though if you for some reason MC into Monk, is less usefull -As you will also get a Bonus action-)

Well, yeah: you're using a class that is in no way optimized from the outset to be a heavy frontline fighter to make a heavy front line fighter.

To a second point, a level of monk is actually AMAZING for this build, as it turns your attack stat into your AC stat. The bonus action attack from the quaterstaff is worth more at that level, not because it does more damage, but because it's magical and works off wisdom. Honestly, a great tactic is to take magic initiate to get Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade, and some decent 1/day wizard spell that doesn't really need your spellcasting stay (unseen servant, identify, etc.) So you can get those bonus damage dice when you don't want to use your bonus action to attack.

Unless you can somehow use it while in the air so the enemy will take an extra 1d6 fall damage (and fall prone) -How will you do it, who knows-

In my mind, there was precisely one reason to take Thorn Whip: as a wisdom-focused Eldritch Knight, so you could use the Pull with your bonus action attack. This was basically overshadowed entirely with Lightning Lure, so I see no reason to ever take Thorn Whip.

[Misterwhisper]

There are many, many things I this guide that are completely wrong.

I am not even talking about armor of metal or wood or anything.