Irhtos Sauriv's guide to front line druidism

[The Zoat]

Mechanically they will not do so. What is so hard to grasp about the term "will not"? Here's the deal, I don't care if Druids can wear metal armour in your game, I really don't. I do care when mental gymnastics are performed to try and make that RAW, when it just isn't. Don't care if you think it's a dumb rule, it's a rule. Just admit it's a rule, that you think is dumb, and don't use. Not hard.

Honestly, this wouldn't have even been a problem if the OP had of let the guide stand its own, instead of using it as a platform to reiterate his aggressive position on the Druid armor argument, again.

A druid mechanically won't, but mechanically CAN. DM's are free to interpret the letter of a paladin oath, they're free to interpret this as well.

[War_lord]

What if I said that in Forgotten Realms, for worshippers of Mielikki, druids are allowed to wear all kinds of armor usable by rangers and that this fact has never been revoked.

Well, in that case... it really doesn't matter. Even if you're specifically playing in the Forgotten Realms setting, and specifically playing as a Druid who is devoted to that specific deity, it's still going to come down to "talk to your DM, in the hope of getting a house rule".

Check it out for yourself, if you don't believe me: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wik...ki#Worshippers

I believe you, I just think it's a totally irrelevant piece of trivia when we're talking about the setting agnostic PHB.

In general, yes, druids won't, but as always, specific trumps general.

The PHB specifically says in two places, both mechanical sections, that Druids will not wear metal armor. how much more specific does it need to me before you admit that waiving that is a house rule? Maybe, instead of pulling mental gymnastics to try and pretend the book doesn't mean what it says, twice, you should examine your own stigma against house rules?

A druid mechanically won't, but mechanically CAN. DM's are free to interpret the letter of a paladin oath, they're free to interpret this as well.

But they mechanically won't. You won't go into work tomorrow and punch your boss in the face, so the implied can is irrelevant. Besides, the implied "can" is weak. In modern English, I cannot and I will not are frequently used interchangeably.

[Arkhios]

Frankly, I find this stubborn opposition against a mere possibility (Can, but Won't = should not ever even consider) quite stupid.

But to each their own I suppose.

[War_lord]

Frankly, I find this stubborn opposition against a mere possibility (Can, but Won't = should not ever even consider) quite stupid.

But to each their own I suppose.

It's not a "can, but won't" it's a "will not".

Ask yourself, why would the writers bother saying "Druids will not wear Metal armor" if they actually intended that Druids wear Metal Armor? Why would they bother writing that sentence, if they actually intended for you to read it super literally as "you won't wear Metal Armor, but you can"? Why wouldn't they just exclude that line totally, or reduce it to being a part of fluff?

Why can't you admit that by RAW Druids won't wear metal armor?

[The Zoat]

Why wouldn't they just exclude that line totally, or reduce it to being a part of fluff?

Why can't you admit that by RAW Druids won't wear metal armor?

I personally think it was included in the equipment section of the class description to be clearer, so players wouldn't miss it when reading about the druid.

As a detail about the character's decision-making and priorities that other party members really couldn't care less about IMO it should ultimately fall to the GM and the player.

[Captain Panda]

I don't think it's a house rule to state that your druid rejects the taboo and wears metal armor. You can have a druid who's different than most. I believe they put the limitation there because most times, in most cases, most druids won't wear metal armor. It's a choice, and it seems that it's up to the player and DM to decide if the druid at the table is going to make that choice themselves.

That said, mechanically... they're good enough as it is. Besides, can't you find some dragonbone plate if it's that important to you?

[The Zoat]

That said, mechanically... they're good enough as it is. Besides, can't you find some dragonbone plate if it's that important to you?

This thread is literally about front line druid. The AC difference is NBD for most druids, but not for one built to take hits.

[Arkhios]

It's not a "can, but won't" it's a "will not".

Ask yourself, why would the writers bother saying "Druids will not wear Metal armor" if they actually intended that Druids wear Metal Armor? Why would they bother writing that sentence, if they actually intended for you to read it super literally as "you won't wear Metal Armor, but you can"? Why wouldn't they just exclude that line totally, or reduce it to being a part of fluff?

Why can't you admit that by RAW Druids won't wear metal armor?

Two reasons why I can't admit to something that isn't exactly true:

First, won't is just shortened way of saying will not. Willingness is a matter of choice and wants. In general, druids see wearing metal armor as a taboo, mainly because it's always been so, because it's a sacred cow, and because it's part of the story of druids.

HOWEVER, secondly, Crawford (Lead Designer of 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons, mind you!) himself has said that some druids might wear metal armor, because it's within their mechanical capabilities (a.k.a. possibilities), primarily because they are proficient with all medium armors (lack of willingness to wear metal does NOT change this fact), while other druids might scoff at them, it doesn't mean they couldn't. A druid doesn't lose ANYTHING in 5th edition from wearing metal armor. As in the first point, that a druid chooses not to wear does not mean that they couldn't choose to wear.

Why. Don't. You. Understand. This?

[busterswd]

So on page 144, when it says a player "won't" come across magic items for sale, what that means is having magic shops everywhere is RAW?

And when it says a half orc "won't" fit into a halfling sized leather armor, what it actually means is that having a small sized half orc is actually RAW?

On page 136, when it says your followers "will not" follow you into dangerous areas, what this means is RAW intends for a noble to start with 3 henchmen who he can use to help him out in dungeons?

After all, they're not using the word "can't".

This entire argument is based on the assumption that an omission of specifically forbidding an edge case is somehow permission. It should be self evident why that's a flawed argument.



Also, same designer SPECIFICALLY states

Druids of any race abide by the taboo against wearing metal armor.

There is no wriggle room there. A druid won't wear metal armor. Period.


And when he says "consult your DM" or mentions your DM can allow something, it's generally a pretty clear sign he's going against RAW.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/26/retrain-feats/

There are no ways to retrain feats in the PHB, ergo there is no guideline for this RAW. What's his response? "Consult your DM".

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...05541136674817

The design intent is for warlocks to have one way telepathy, but a "DM could rule otherwise".

His stance has been, and has ALWAYS been, that with DM permission, you can override the RAW. DM permission and RAW are not the same thing, and you somehow trying to make the argument that a DM can override an armor requirement holds no water. If anything, by him indicating you need a DM override to make this legal, it's proving that it's not RAW.

[Coidzor]

The OP needs more line breaks and would benefit from tightening up the organization and presentation of information.

[The Zoat]

So on page 144, when it says a player "won't" come across magic items for sale, what that means is having magic shops everywhere is RAW?

Is having magic items for sale in a campaign ever at all therefore against RAW? I've never considered it homebrew to alter something that is technically a setting detail.

[busterswd]

Is having magic items for sale in a campaign ever at all therefore against RAW? I've never considered it homebrew to alter something that is technically a setting detail.

It's almost always against the RAW. DMG states several times, in several ways, that you cannot buy a magic item; they're simply too rare.

Also, that's literally the only thing you got out of that?

[djreynolds]

I have hombrewed animal armor. A druid or really anyone can make armor out of different animal parts.

You can use the natural AC of a creature who's CR is half your level, its not bad and we had it that it lasts twice the days of the creatures CR, so CR8 would be 16 days.

So you could use the scales of a young dragon CR8 AC18, heavy armor proficiency required if you were level 16... its something. Perhaps someone else can take this idea an run with it.

Lots of giant crabs were killed

[The Zoat]

The argument is that the presence (or lack thereof) of a magic shop (an uncommon but certainly extant fantasy trope) is a detail of the setting and thus a DM concern. Similar is the presence (or lack thereof) of the Druid's taboo against metal armour. Sometimes (imagine a druid who developed powers independently of training or interaction with other sentient beings) the taboo just doesn't make sense.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sometimes the taboo just doesn't make sense.

If a RULE (not a taboo, a rule, any rule) doesn't make sense to you, you can talk to your DM. But the fact that it doesn't make sense to you, personally, doesn't make it any less of a rule.

[The Zoat]

If a RULE (not a taboo, a rule, any rule) doesn't make sense to you, you can talk to your DM. But the fact that it doesn't make sense to you, personally, doesn't make it any less of a rule.

It isn't mechanical. It's a choice. Hence will not vs. cannot.

[jaappleton]

I know I shouldn't, but I will anyway. I agree, Player's Handbook is very clear on nonmetal. Note, that saying "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" doesn't mean the same as "druids can not wear armor or use shields made of metal". A druid wearing armor or using a shield made of metal doesn't cause a druid to explode and suddenly lose their abilities because the rules don't say anything of the sort.

I'll be brutally honest:

I haven't read this entire thread. There's quite a few pages.

But just to chime in: I don't think this will fly in AL games, but my DM lets me reflavor medium armors that are metal to be made of bone. Still makes a ton of noise, so still has Disadvantage on stealth for most of 'em. So try that with your DM, see if it'll fly.

As a side note, I'll forever love Jeremy Crawford's answer to this: "What happens if a Druid wears metal armor?"

"The Druid explodes."


He went on to say, essentially, "Its whatever. Don't let the restriction hamper your enjoyment. Do what makes sense for your game."

That last line... People often forget that one, I think.

[DivisibleByZero]

It isn't mechanical.

So proficiencies aren't mechanical? Because everywhere this restriction is mentioned, it is always under a proficiency header.

Just because you don't like the fluff and history doesn't mean it isn't a rule.

[jaappleton]

So proficiencies aren't mechanical? Because everywhere this restriction is mentioned, it is always under a proficiency header.

Just because you don't like the fluff and history doesn't mean it isn't a rule.

Honest question: Is it a rule worth enforcing?

[The Zoat]

So proficiencies aren't mechanical? Because everywhere this restriction is mentioned, it is always under a proficiency header.

How does what a character chooses to do (note SA specifically calls it a taboo) function mechanically? Location is important, but this is the only such thing placed in a way, so there isn't any example of this exact format. After all, they could have just said that druids WEREN'T proficient in metal armours, but they don't word it that way.

[DivisibleByZero]

This entire argument is based on the assumption that an omission of specifically forbidding an edge case is somehow permission. It should be self evident why that's a flawed argument.

Exactly. Somehow, amazingly, they don't see it that way. Not because they can't, but simply because they don't want to.
The can, but they will not.
Ironic, isn't it?

Also, same designer SPECIFICALLY states

Druids of any race abide by the taboo against wearing metal armor.

There is no wriggle room there. A druid won't wear metal armor. Period.

Good find.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Get your DM's permission, but do not assume that it will be allowed, because the Rules state that it is not allowed. Just like we've been saying since the beginning.
Debate over.

[The Zoat]

The wording of "Druids of all races abide" is ambiguous, it might mean that all druids, regardless of race, abide, or it might mean that druids of each race abide, but not necessarily all of them. Anyway as I said, setting detail.

[tkuremento]

1. Nonmetal is stated under proficiencies. This would imply that they aren't technically proficient in the metal medium armors.

2. A guide can have "ask your DM about" but should NOT be focused around that. A guide should be a little more general but mostly RAW. This of course is unless there is a majority consensus that some particular thing should be taken at RAI. Also a few optional rules could be taken into consideration like Feats and V.Human.

3. If you want extensive homebrew, here you go.

[Philistine]

I'm not trying to take a side, here, but I do feel the need to point out that the following suggestion:

Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

... does not support the idea that Druids should be allowed to wear metal armor. At all. Depending on authorial intent, it's either a completely idiotic comparison or a subtle but absolute rejection of the idea. Consider: a vegetarian may choose to eat meat, yes (unless they've abstained so long as to acquire an enzyme deficiency condition, rendering them unable to digest animal proteins). But a vegetarian who chooses to eat meat on a regular basis is no longer a vegetarian!

So. If the intent was not "a Druid who chooses to wear metal armor is no longer a Druid" - which would be an extreme position and non-RAW position to take - then the comparison is ridiculous, and thus unhelpful. If the intent was "a Druid who chooses to wear metal armor is no longer a Druid," then we're deep into non-RAW territory... but there are hints of possible intent (things like the continued existence of Druidic as a language, and the idea of Druid Circles) that Druids have some kind of multiversal organization capable of enforcing their taboos. Still probably more trouble than it's worth. And still not RAW.

Personally, I'd probably just port ironwood into the new edition - as a mostly-mundane material (and at the same cost as metal armor), as a spell, or both.

[Misterwhisper]

So a very badly written guide building a character that could not exist in point buy, who is supposed to be front line but just casts spells anyway, who takes a pointless feat for a caster druid, and ignores the best druid cantrip to the point that many other classes take magic initiate just so they can steal it, is all just a long winded ruse to get people arguing a out metal armor and druids again.

It is simple phb writing lazyness.

If they won't wear the armor, and in the book there are zero non-metal versions, why give proficiency?

Just list the armors they can use and leave off the ones they won't, they do it for many classes weapon proficiencies, stop being lazy and do it for the armor.

[tkuremento]

So a very badly written guide building a character that could not exist in point buy, who is supposed to be front line but just casts spells anyway, who takes a pointless feat for a caster druid, and ignores the best druid cantrip to the point that many other classes take magic initiate just so they can steal it, is all just a long winded ruse to get people arguing a out metal armor and druids again.

It is simple phb writing lazyness.

If they won't wear the armor, and in the book there are zero non-metal versions, why give proficiency?

Just list the armors they can use and leave off the ones they won't, they do it for many classes weapon proficiencies, stop being lazy and do it for the armor.

Hide is medium, nonmetal

[Misterwhisper]

Hide is medium, nonmetal

{scrubbed}

[Coidzor]

Just list the armors they can use and leave off the ones they won't, they do it for many classes weapon proficiencies, stop being lazy and do it for the armor.

If they did it that way, then they couldn't make having a suit of half-plate or plate armor made from a non-metal substance count as more of a treasure than it would otherwise be.

Like in Adventurer's League, there's a suit of fungus-chitin Half-Plate. Without Druids having proficiency, it'd just be an oddity for a Barbarian or Cleric. Since Druids have proficiency, it's just that little bit more special, even if one isn't a Druid.

[tkuremento]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Weapons are not armor. There are 12 armors not including shields. The spread is 3, 5, 4 for light, medium, and heavy respectively. There are 37 weapons not including unarmed strikes and improvised. They are spread 10, 4, 18, 5 between Simple Melee, Simple Ranged, Martial Melee, and Martial Ranged.

Then from there you need to consider the thematic and historic (for D&D, not real history) uses these weapons had for classes. This can't always be simply divided just by saying Simple or Martial for some of the classes and that is why specific weapons are called out. Specific Armors don't have as much of a thematic use--though the overall of light, medium, and heavy can be a bit thematic to classes. There is one I can think of with specifics, that being the use of nonmetals only for Druids. They have kept this. Yes, they didn't keep what happens if you do don them but that is also because, to mine understanding, there wasn't something barring people from putting it on specifically in the rules and instead there were consequences if you did. In 5e it is different, and it straight up bars the use of metal armor.

I want to reiterate points I have made elsewhere though. I am fine if your DM houserules whatever they want, working with the player for metal armor if they so choose. However that is NOT THE CASE BY RAW. And we give RAW to others generally because we can't assume other DMs will accommodate such houserules. This is why earlier I said RAW and consensus RAI are okay, optional rules that are consensus are okay, but don't focus on them too much. And if you want to add mention of houserule or rulings, make it brief in the specific section but don't carry it through the guide ASSUMING the DM WILL use it.

Edit: Also what Coidzor just said, if a nonmetal version is available then go ham by RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

Exactly. Somehow, amazingly, they don't see it that way. Not because they can't, but simply because they don't want to.
The can, but they will not.
Ironic, isn't it?

No, it isn't. You are purposely misinterpreting the other side.

Good find.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Get your DM's permission, but do not assume that it will be allowed, because the Rules state that it is not allowed. Just like we've been saying since the beginning.
Debate over.

Don't kid yourself DBZ, this is not what you've been saying. If you were amenable to the idea that it is up to the DM, there would never have been an issue.

Ask your DM. Like it says in the OP. No debate necessary.

1. Nonmetal is stated under proficiencies. This would imply that they aren't technically proficient in the metal medium armors.

No, it would not imply that. At all. In fact, it has to go out of its way to mention metal specifically because they are proficient in those kinds of armor but won't wear them.

2. A guide can have "ask your DM about" but should NOT be focused around that.

I know my irritation at these types of declarations is probably super irrational, but holy **** does this annoy the crap out of me. If you want a standard druid guide, go look it up. It already exists. There is no space limitation on this forum. There is no precious resource being used up by a non-standard guide. You are not an authority to say what types of guides shouldn't exist.

There is nothing wrong with a guide that says "Here, this is a guide for druids that can wear breastplate". Don't click on it if it offends your sensibilities to such a degree.

Also a few optional rules could be taken into consideration like Feats and V.Human.

You have to ask your DM if you can use feats. If you can multiclass. If you can be a variant human. If you can wear metal armor as a druid. Not a big difference, not a big deal.

3. If you want extensive homebrew, here you go.

A druid wearing metal armor is not homebrew. The way that you sticklers are loose with your words makes my eye twitch.

Anyways, if you want a standard druid handbook, here you go.