Land Druid and it's AC problems

[ad_hoc]

Serious question here, what would you do with a character who started as a druid but stopped following the druid path to be a warrior (fighter ) and started wearing metal armor? Would you strip them of their druid powers for a change in philosophy brought on by experiences?

To be clear, I'm referring to completely abandoning further druid advancement for story reasins.

Tell them to stop breaking the rules, have them make a new character, or replace their druid levels with non-druid levels (we don't use multiclassing so this is just a hypothetical for my campaigns).

What if you were playing improv games and in the game where a character can only say 1 of 2 sentences a player just starts talking casually because they have decided it is what 'their character would do'. How do you think that situation should be resolved?

The answer is to ask the person to follow the rules or leave.

[Sigreid]

If his core spiritual beliefs and his reverence for the order haven't changed, then neither has his aversion to metal armor, because that aversion is a part of the order's spiritual beliefs.

Not necessarily. It's possible to believe that's inappropriate to a druid, and believe you are no longer a druid and not bound by it without necessarily loosing everything you have gained to that point.

The Genesis of the question comes from AD&D where it was clear what would happen. You keep your druid powers but if you used non-druid weapons and armor after multi-classing to a fighter you would loose your druid powers for a period of time (IIRC it was 24 hours after stopping). 5e doesn't do any more than essentially say "If you're a druid you don't wanna".

[tkuremento]

and the Sage Compendium 2015 has also okayed the use of Studded Armor by druids as well (at least by their interpretation of RAW).

I totally missed that. Thanks though I then can no longer justify hide except it costs less and weighs less.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not necessarily. It's possible to believe that's inappropriate to a druid, and believe you are no longer a druid and not bound by it without necessarily loosing everything you have gained to that point.

Sure.
Ask your DM and get permission. It is not solely your decision to make.

[Sigreid]

Historically studded leather was actually Brigandine, which had oblong or rectangular metal plates riveted to the back of a leather or canvas fabric, so you only see the studs from the front. Basically it's a lighter and sort-of-inverted form of Splint Mail. It is also related to the earlier Coat of Plates armor, but significantly trimmed down and lighter.

Unfortunately Gygax (or maybe some other fantasy author or tabletop designer came up with it first) saw the studs in a Medieval portrait and assumed it was just leather armor with studs driven through the front from some reason (which wouldn't make sense, really, since the only reason to add studs is to rivet or attach something to the fabric or leather. By itself it wouldn't hold that well and would barely offer any additional protection).

This would mean the so-called Studded Leather is mostly made out of metal then. Or at least the more important protective parts (the plates).

Having said that, I would allow 5e Druids in my sessions to wear Studded Leather. I believe this is RAI, even if it's historically incorrect, as it is a common mistake made by fantasy authors, and the Sage Compendium 2015 has also okayed the use of Studded Armor by druids as well (at least by their interpretation of RAW).

What you say is true, but I'll point out that even among historians there was a lot of confusion about what armors actually were at the time D&D was created, and still is on some of it.

[Sigreid]

Sure.
Ask your DM and get permission. It is not solely your decision to make.

Oh, I am not planning on doing this at all. I'm merely curious about how the will not = can't crowd would resolve it. I'm still of the opinion that a deep wild character, either druid or ranger, would most likely prefer leather and hide armors due to the shear difficulty of taking proper care of a suit of metal armor in the wilds. Seriously, combating rust would be a huge thing to add to the day to day needs of survival.

[Sigreid]

(Now, if this were done for purely Char Op reasons then I would balk at bending the rules, 'though I see no reason [yet] how this would be mechanically unbalanced.)

If my intention were to break the game, I can think of much easier ways than having this argument.

[FinnS]

Citations:
Dungeons and Dragons, every single edition ever made, from AD&D2e on, where the Druid existed as a single class.

Small correction, it is right from the beginning from the inclusion of the class in AD&D 1e...

Druid spells are intended to strengthen, protect, and revitalize a party as a cleric, but his spells are more attuned to nature. Their spells are more powerful as attacks than clerics, and they can use a greater variety of weapons (the restriction against drawing blood does not apply), but they may not use any metallic armor or shield. Since such metallic protections would prevent the druid from being able to perform his magic, he may only wear leather or padded armor or none, and may carry only wood shields.

[Tanarii]

Small correction, it is right from the beginning from the inclusion of the class in AD&D 1e...

Nitpick ... AD&D 1e was neither the beginning of D&D nor the beginning of the Druid class.

However, it's only a nitpick. Because from Dungeons & Dragons Supplement III - Eldritch Wizardry, which is where the Druid class first appeared as a PC class:
"They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor."

Edit: Further straight-out Roleplaying rules for Druids, from the same book:
"Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendency of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest —no matter how enchanted or evil it may be—although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own [sic] magicks."

Like most roleplaying games, D&D has a long history of roleplaying rules and/or restrictions. It's a modern fallacy that players must/should be in charge of what their PC believes at all times. Just as the idea that all rules can be divided into the categories of fluff/mechanics is a modern fallacy.

[Unoriginal]

Not necessarily. It's possible to believe that's inappropriate to a druid, and believe you are no longer a druid

If you believe you are no longer a Druid, you lose your faith-based power.

[Tetrasodium]

Spoiler: dmg magic items section

Show

MITHRAL ARMOR
Armor (medium or heavy, but not hide), uncommon
Mithral is a light, flexible metal. A mithral chain shirt
or breastplate can be worn under normal clothes. I£ the
armor normally imposes disadvantage on Dexterity
(Stealth) checks or has a Strength requirement, the
mithral version of the armor doesn't.

No other armor in the DMG contains the word "metal", even adamantine is simply a "substance" all but the traditionally caster friendly mithral armor into a state of schrodinger's cat like existence where they are both metal and not metal until someone checks allowing significant leeway in the form of nonmetal armors. To unravel that, we need to look back in the phb

Spoiler

Show

M e d i u m A r m o r
M edium arm or offers m ore protection than light armor,
but it also impairs movement more. If you w ear m edium
armor, you add your Dexterity modifier, to a maximum
of +2, to the base number from your arm or type to
determine your Arm or Class.
Hide. This crude arm or consists o f thick furs and
pelts. It is com m only w orn by barbarian tribes, evil
humanoids, and other folk w ho lack access to the tools
and materials needed to create better armor.
Chain Shirt. M ade of interlocking metal rings, a chain
shirt is w orn betw een layers o f clothing or [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i]. This
arm or offers m odest protection to the w earer’s upper
body and allows the sound of the rings rubbing against
one another to be muffled by outer layers.
Scale Mail. This arm or consists of a coat and leggings
(and perhaps a separate skirt) o f [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i] covered with
overlapping pieces of metal, much like the scales of a
fish. The suit includes gauntlets.
Breastplate. This arm or consists of a fitted metal
chest piece worn with supple [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i]. Although it leaves
the legs and arms relatively unprotected, this armor
provides good protection for the w earer’s vital organs
while leaving the w earer relatively unencumbered.
H alf Plate. H alf plate consists of shaped metal plates
that cover m ost of the w earer’s body. It does not include
leg protection beyond simple greaves that are attached
with [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i] straps.

H e a v y A r m o r
O f all the arm or categories, heavy arm or offers the best
protection. These suits o f arm or cover the entire body
and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks. Only
proficient w arriors can m anage their weight and bulk.
Heavy arm or doesn’t let you add your Dexterity
modifier to your Arm or Class, but it also doesn’t
penalize you if your Dexterity m odifier is negative.
Ring Mail. This armor is [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i] arm or with heavy
rings sew n into it. The rings help reinforce the armor
against blows from sw ords and axes. Ring mail is
inferior to chain mail, and it's usually w orn only by those
w ho can’t afford better armor.
Chain Mail. Made of interlocking metal rings, chain
mail includes a layer of quilted fabric w orn underneath
the mail to prevent chafing and to cushion the impact of
blows. The suit includes gauntlets.
Splint. This arm or is made of narrow vertical strips
of metal riveted to a backing of [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i] that is worn over
cloth padding. Flexible chain mail protects the joints.
Plate. Plate consists o f shaped, interlocking metal
plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes
gauntlets, heavy [/b][/i]leather[/b][/i] boots, a visored helmet, and
thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles
and straps distribute the weight over the body.

Apparantly the strict RAW "no druid will ever wear metal armor & because it does not say there can be exceptions there never will" interpretation when applied to the actual armors allows every armor type with the exception of plate since the only leather in it is the boots while every other medium and heavy armor has significant functional leather built into it. By extension, mithral is metal, adamantine is merely a "substance" to put it back into the schrodinger's cat box. Many of them "have" leather in them, but so does studded; but all except plate include a significant enough nonmetal leather content to go into detail about how the leather is used in it & some seemingly have more nonmetal than metal on account of it being sandwiched between leather and/or clothing. I doubt there is much metal clothing & druids are fine with metal everything else, so even hypothetical metal clothing should be fine too. The reason is because it does not say "mostly", "significantly", or"some" metal and implies "all" for the same reason that "druids will not wear armor made of metal seemingly implies "all druids without exception" so armor with nonmetal content is not "made if metal" on account of the nonmetal parts invalidating the "made of metal" by the strictest most absolute RAW interpretation being suggested by so many of the not ever ever crowd.

Now I agree this is obviously a stretch, but when the only reason given for supporting an absolutist never ever under any circumstances ignored is circular logic, reducto absurdum, & false equivalence it fits right in comfortably. so Dear OP If your gm forces you to go to this level of extreme to the exact letter of RAW, find a new gm.

[tkuremento]

Omitted

Dude, can you just drop it? You keep misquoting portions of the book to make a faulty point.

[Chaosmancer]

That's right. And if you don't like it, then choose a different class. The druid class is built upon beliefs, much like the Cleric is. If you want a character with different beliefs, then either choose a different class or work with your DM. But the choice is out of the hands of the player beyond that.

See, “much like Clerics” is false though. All the cleric is required to have is some sort of relationship with a diety.

They could hate their diety, but still be forced to serve them
They could worship the deity only because they were raised that way, and care little else beyond that
They could be having sexual relations with their diety.

Every possible degree of relationship is possible by RAW, the player has a massive hand in choosing what their character actually believe. A cleric player can even make up a deity and a religious doctrine if none of the established one’s work, though adding a god to a DMs world without asking is rude.

All Druids hate metal armor more than necromancy spells (which they have a few they can use)

There is no RP rule, or belief system espoused in the PHB as restrictive as this, and that is weird. The player has no power over this aspect of the belief system, even if it makes no sense for their character to believe that (some of the aforementioned Dwarven or Kobold druids who would see metal as being a natural extension of underground world)

The rules are clear: Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by crowds.

It baffles you that we follow the rules of a game we have all decided to play? Not much I can do to help you with that one.

So, the only barbarians allowed at your table are tribal warriors who are uncomfortable in towns? So, if a player wanted to play a Half-elf Barbarian Noble (Knight) you would just straight up tell them no? You have to be an Outlander, because all barbarians are tribal people?

By RAW, I can make any sort of barbarian that believes anything that I care for them to believe. I hope to one day play a Human Totem Barbarian Knight, whose totem animal is the wolf from his family’s heraldry, and he will be the Knightliest Knight who ever Knighted. The rules support that decision. There is nothing that says I can’t do that, except for a blurb of fluff text that says all barbarians are tribal nomads who think with their muscles.

I don’t think ever class needs to be the stereotypes. That gets boring after a few years I’d imagine.

No, adding a mechanical penalty would be a mistake, it would be tacitly saying it's "ok" for a Druid to wear metal armor, because they know the risks going in.

This is a roleplaying faux pas that we're discussing, Druids should not be attempting to wear metal armor anymore than a Good character should be attempting to sacrifice orphans for power. The only enforcement against a roleplaying error of that magnitude is DM intervention. Nothing less would ever suffice as a corrective.

It's up to the DM to see the activity and check it.

Okay, why don’t druids where metal armor? Because they believe it is bad. Why do they believe that? Because believing that is part of being a Druid. We call that religion.

Violating your religious beliefs is like slaughtering children to steal their souls for power.

What???

There is no penalty for Druids wearing metal armor because it is essentially just a strong belief. Including a penalty gives it a mechanical reason. It weakens them somehow, which then gives meaning to why they don’t wear it. It gives the player a choice. Without that, it is simply a belief that is ironclad for little to no real reason. Tradition must be respected even by people who do not believe in or respect tradition.

There is no inconsistency.
They believe it to be unnatural to completely cover themselves in worked metal.
They have no problems with a little bit of worked metal when it is a tool (machete for clearing brush-scimitar, sickle for farming-it is a farm implement after all, etc).
A little metal is fine, for tools or decoration or functionality. Covering yourself in worked metal is unnatural.
They will not wear armor made or metal. That says nothing about using metal for any other purposes. There is no inconsistency.

Being in a metal room is fine
Being in a metal city is fine
Wearing metal sleeves is fine

There is inconsistency here, who cares if people use sickles as farming equipment? Farming is unnatural, it is forcing the land to obey the will of man. Using a machete to hack away at the forest is damaging the forest, how is this okay? What is the explanation for metal daggers, or metal maces? Those are completely fine but have no connection to nature. Hunting Daggers could be made of stone or bone, that would be more natural than metal. Same with spears and javelins. Quarterstaff made of metal? Completely fine, they have no problem with wielding that. Take weapon master and they have no problem with wielding greatswords or any other metal weapon either.

Druids are fine with all these. But it is unnatural to wear metal armor, and so under no circumstances will they ever do so.

It makes no sense.

I know it doesn't make a difference in terms of mechanics, but how would you guys interpret the 'won't use metal shields' part?

Would you say that druids couldn't use shields that are mostly or completely made of metal, or that they can't use shields that contain any metal at all?

I ask merely because I was wondering about wooden shields with metal rims, and wondering whether or not they'd be permitted for druids.

What I find interesting about this, how often does someone bother to ask if a shield is made of metal or not in-game?

Seriously, thinking back,I don’t think I could pinpoint any shield in our 5e games as being metal or wood, because mechanically they are the exact same thing and no one bothers to mention whether any particular shield is one or the other.

The difference isn't what they can wear. The difference is what they are *willing* to wear. It's a matter of principle for them.

And yet all other “matters of principle” are mostly if not entirely in the hands of the players, not the rule book.

It isn't extreme, and it doesn't constrict character development. You know going in that this restriction exists. If you don't like it you have two options: 1) don't play a druid, 2) see if your DM is willing to work with you on it.

Player: “I want to start taking levels in Druid, to represent the magic that Dryad I’m hanging out is teaching me”
DM: “Okay, you’re no longer allowed to wear your plate mail”
Player: “Why?”
DM: “As a Druid you believe worked metal to be unnatural and refuse to wear it”
Player: “As a soldier and a level 11 fighter, I believe metal armor, and the Heavy armor master feat I took, have saved my life hundreds of times. So… I’m going to keep the armor”
DM: “Then you can’t take any levels in druid”

Sure, the player has other options, Fey Warlock, Nature Cleric, Wizard, They just can’t do something completely legal by RAW (multiclass into druid) without fundamentally altering their beliefs because Druids are not complex characters with multiple facets. They are cardboard cut outs who believe worked metal is evil if it is on your body, in the form of armor or a shield, not a necklace or series of bracelets, that’s fine, only armor and a shield.

Some matters of principle are class-dependent.

And yet, even in those cases you can point to, like paladins, they have far more freedom than the Druid. And there are very, very few you can point to as this argument has shown.

but you cannot play a Druid who disbelieves what the Druidic Order believes, because in that case you are not a Druid.

Why not?

What if the Druidic order calls a meeting, and the majority decide that because of their beliefs all druids must work to kill every goblin and orc in existence, slaughtering their women and children, and tearing down every city in existence.

The Druidic Order believes this, so now your character must believe this and follow those practices.

A Cleric can defy his Church, a Paladin can defy his King, but a Druid cannot defy his order and still be a druid? This makes no sense, people aren’t that simple.

But we aren't talking about people. We're talking about rules in a game.

And yet, those rules are to help us act out our characters. Our characters are people, if they aren’t people then there is no investment in the world, and without investment I find the game to be a shallow grind.

We tell stories, stories require characters who make sense as people, not a series of rules that interact robotically with the world (mileage varies when some characters can be robots or computers, and exploring that difference is the point of the work, which still usually involves the two being compared and therefore at least one person is necessary to show the difference)

[Astofel]

As amusing as this thread has been I think it's time to just stop. At this point it's obvious that no side is going to be convincing the other side any time soon, what with the same points and arguments being brought up repeatedly over the last several pages, with little to no change or progress.

The general consensus seems to be that yes, by RAW druids can't wear metal armour, and if your character concept requires them to do otherwise, get DM approval. There are some people who say that the rule is silly, and I don't disagree, but it is nonetheless still RAW. Then there are a few people who seem to think that the DM is obligated to accept any and all character concepts based on a suggestion in the DMG, and they are the ones who are going to be disappointed or angry when a DM rejects their character concept because it doesn't work in their setting.

There, I summed up 17 pages of fruitless back-and-forth, can we go home or discuss something more interesting or important?

[Tetrasodium]

Then there are a few people who seem to think that the DM is obligated to accept any and all character concepts based on a suggestion in the DMG, and they are the ones who are going to be disappointed or angry when a DM rejects their character concept because it doesn't work in their setting.

I'd say that is a continuation of the unreasonable reductio ad absurdum considering it started with the suggestion of coming up with a justification & start doing it immediately following a quote of the entire sage advice entry that talked about talking with your gm about it in the same post #31 only to have the shrill, snide, & condescending "a druid will not ever under any circumstances because RAW" quickly storm out of the woodwork to pound the table ever since.

So Dear OP, no matter how much it offends the people on the "no never ever" side of the fence, find a new GM if you need to ignorder to get past 16ac without taking extreme measures like multiclassing into nature cleric for proficiency with the medium armor you got at character creation, regularly forcing the group to sidetrack into hunt & gather tangents for you to keep your basic nonmagic >hide armor from falling apart, be faced with "usually[read:always as the person who suggested this actually confirmed]" magic armor will be denied on account of being metal, & other such nonsense. Unless the GM is unexpectedly acting impartially by forcing prior edition stuff on every other class.... and well... If they are going that far, you should probably find a new gm too for other reasons.

[Citan]

Serious question here, what would you do with a character who started as a druid but stopped following the druid path to be a warrior (fighter ) and started wearing metal armor? Would you strip them of their druid powers for a change in philosophy brought on by experiences?

To be clear, I'm referring to completely abandoning further druid advancement for story reasins.

Frankly, it would essentially depend on the reason why he decided to change carreer, and his character in general.
But, apart from possible restrictions relating to Wild Shape (in short, from form choice restriction up to plain impossibility to Wild Shape when wearing metal), as I detailed in some of my previous posts, I would see no reason to make him lose any powers, UNLESS 1) we are in a setting that explicitely tells the Druid take power from identified Nature Spirits or such (I mean, spirits that everyone know have actual, direct influence on the world) and 2) Character would be clearly going against the basic values of the Druidic Path, such as burning forests or killing creatures for fun.

But, for example, a Druid deciding that wearing metal armor to better survive the oncoming fight with overnumbering poachers or a horde of undead has absolutely NOT renounced to his principles, he's just making a pragmatic decision (one Druid defender with metal is better than a dead defender). So I don't see why he should suffer in his powers (even if this was not a one-time decision but more a long-term way of life, such as taking Heavily Armored feat).

As for the more general discussion. Frankly, I don't even understand why WoTC really wants to hold to this fluff. Or am I the only one puzzled by the idea that someone who supposedly "like" Nature with a big N and wild life would prefer wearing HIDE armor (= armor made from dead animals) rather than METAL armor (= inert material, not requiring to take any life)?
I understand very well the subjacent idea of wearing hide because you "feel closer to nature" or similar thoughts (because you weat something that were alive once), but imo wearing metal, even dedicating oneself to wear only metal should be an equally acceptable self-restraint for a Druid...

Again, the only true reason I see for this is that it's intuitive to think that when Wild Shaping (which implies your equipment merges with your body) Druid can "bend and shape" hide (by using the power of "life"), but not metal (which has never harbored any life, since non-living material in the first place), and that is the (only) reason why they won't wear it...

[Astofel]

I'd say that is a continuation of the unreasonable reductio ad absurdum considering it started with the suggestion of coming up with a justification & start doing it immediately following a quote of the entire sage advice entry that talked about talking with your gm about it in the same post #31 only to have the shrill, snide, & condescending "a druid will not ever under any circumstances because RAW" quickly storm out of the woodwork to pound the table ever since.

So Dear OP, no matter how much it offends the people on the "no never ever" side of the fence, find a new GM if you need to ignorder to get past 16ac without taking extreme measures like multiclassing into nature cleric for proficiency with the medium armor you got at character creation, regularly forcing the group to sidetrack into hunt & gather tangents for you to keep your basic nonmagic >hide armor from falling apart, be faced with "usually[read:always as the person who suggested this actually confirmed]" magic armor will be denied on account of being metal, & other such nonsense. Unless the GM is unexpectedly acting impartially by forcing prior edition stuff on every other class.... and well... If they are going that far, you should probably find a new gm too for other reasons.

Except that the very same SA article you quoted in post 31 also says that the DM has the final say in regards to how far you can go from your class's story and still be considered a member of that class, which is to say that if the DM decides that wearing metal armour is going too far for a druid, you can't be a druid and wear metal armour. And no-one is arguing that druids can't wear metal armour ever because RAW, they're saying that if you're playing in a game that for whatever reason abides strictly by RAW they can't wear metal armour in that game. Those people are also mostly saying that they'd be happy to waive the rule if you have a good justification, or find an alternative if you don't. I've already given my thoughts on why alternatives aren't punishment, so I won't bother to restate them here.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that druids are always going to be denied magic armour, but if the DM is providing magic metal armour then it clearly wasn't intended for the druid and is meant for another member of the party. If the DM wanted to give the druid magic armour he'd provide magic leather, studded, hide, or another medium armour made of nonmetal material. And by the way, a DM acting impartially means they are following the rules and favouring/punishing no-one. It doesn't mean they're going to drag in mechanics from past editions purely because the druid has a restriction that also exists in past editions.

But whatever. I'm not going to argue with you any further. People have tried to explain their viewpoints to you and you have consistently misinterpreted them while quoting various things without their full context. There is no further meaningful discussion to be had here, so I'm done with this thread and everyone else should be as well. This has gone on about 15 pages too long. Just let it die.

[Tetrasodium]

Except that the very same SA article you quoted in post 31 also says that the DM has the final say in regards to how far you can go from your class's story and still be considered a member of that class, which is to say that if the DM decides that wearing metal armour is going too far for a druid, you can't be a druid and wear metal armour. And no-one is arguing that druids can't wear metal armour ever because RAW, they're saying that if you're playing in a game that for whatever reason abides strictly by RAW they can't wear metal armour in that game. Those people are also mostly saying that they'd be happy to waive the rule if you have a good justification, or find an alternative if you don't. I've already given my thoughts on why alternatives aren't punishment, so I won't bother to restate them here.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that druids are always going to be denied magic armour, but if the DM is providing magic metal armour then it clearly wasn't intended for the druid and is meant for another member of the party. If the DM wanted to give the druid magic armour he'd provide magic leather, studded, hide, or another medium armour made of nonmetal material. And by the way, a DM acting impartially means they are following the rules and favouring/punishing no-one. It doesn't mean they're going to drag in mechanics from past editions purely because the druid has a restriction that also exists in past editions.

But whatever. I'm not going to argue with you any further. People have tried to explain their viewpoints to you and you have consistently misinterpreted them while quoting various things without their full context. There is no further meaningful discussion to be had here, so I'm done with this thread and everyone else should be as well. This has gone on about 15 pages too long. Just let it die.

Aww, does it hurt your feelings that I suggested the OP find a new GM if said GM is one of those types who "raw says you won't period no discussion, because RAW says"... are you perhaps his or her GM, or maybe that's a GM style you aim for?

[Naanomi]

be faced with "usually[read:always as the person who suggested this actually confirmed]" magic armor will be denied on account of being metal, & other such nonsense

Funny, I am that person with that suggestion... and I made great pains to clarify that 'less common' didn't mean 'impossible to find'; and in fact equipment rarity is a big continuum in any game... as well as state that I didn't think magical armor (or specific magical equipment of any kind) isn't really an expectation in the games I run anyways, so its overall availability isn't a significant factor in any case.

[Astofel]

Aww, does it hurt your feelings that I suggested the OP find a new GM if said GM is one of those types who "raw says you won't period no discussion, because RAW says"... are you perhaps his or her GM, or maybe that's a GM style you aim for?

No, you haven't hurt my feelings at all. I think that if you're unhappy with a DM who abides stricly by RAW you're completely within your rights to find another one who is less strict. As for my own personal DMing style, I tend to run pretty loose with the rules and find opportunities to work with what the players want as long as it's not too game-breaking. Heck, I even allowed the Mystic UA and from what I see hardly anyone does that. The only time I only use RAW is when I'm teaching new players in their first campaign, so they learn how the game works before I start adding alterations. I'm talking in hypotheticals here, in my experience hardly any DMs follow RAW to the letter unless they're running AL, and if they are then druids can't wear metal armour.

[War_lord]

The reason we stick to strict RAW in forum discussions isn't because we're the fun police, or because we're part of some vast anti-Druid conspiracy, or because we hate other players. The reason we stick to strict RAW in forum discussions is that every single DM has their own style preferences, their own personal errata and a mental list of house rules to cover stuff neither the PHB or DMG covers explicitly. So any departure from RAW in an open discussion about a mechanical matter (AC in this case) is basically a waste of time, because you're introducing a whole pillar of speculation that's heavily dependent on the existence of a DM who follows that exact line of house rule reasoning, making it quite useless advice for anyone who isn't willing to shop around for a DM who follows that exact school of thought.

[tkuremento]

The reason we stick to strict RAW in forum discussions isn't because we're the fun police, or because we're part of some vast anti-Druid conspiracy, or because we hate other players. The reason we stick to strict RAW in forum discussions is that every single DM has their own style preferences, their own personal errata and a mental list of house rules to cover stuff neither the PHB or DMG covers explicitly. So any departure from RAW in an open discussion about a mechanical matter (AC in this case) is basically a waste of time, because you're introducing a whole pillar of speculation that's heavily dependent on the existence of a DM who follows that exact line of house rule reasoning, making it quite useless advice for anyone who isn't willing to shop around for a DM who follows that exact school of thought.

This, I second, triple, quad, etc this. We put RAW out whilst saying "table variance" and that is the best we can do. The end.

[Specter]

Do you think that the guys who make these unending threads know that they're making them? Like, "oooh these guys will be at it for days! HAHAHAHAHA..."

I find it amusing to think they do.

[RickAllison]

This, I second, triple, quad, etc this. We put RAW out whilst saying "table variance" and that is the best we can do. The end.

Indeed. For suggested changes, we can put forth exactly why we would rule in a given manner. I, for example, have the view that class divisions do not have to match the in-universe constructs. A Druidic order in my games is going to be composed of Druids (obviously), Nature Clerics, rangers, Feylocks, Wild Magic Sorcerers, and rare examples of stranger fits like Arcane Tricksters (picking up lessons from the fairies and pixies) and Knowledge Clerics (who record and catalogue the states of various natural areas for future reference). By way of contrast, my worlds will also have scholars at a university who devote themselves more fully to transformative studies than regular transmutation and so are Moon Druids where you would normally expect to see wizards. Because of this view, I suggest that the restriction should be lifted as I feel that forcing every person who even dips Druid to suddenly align their belief system in such a bizarre way actively discourages role playing a character in favor of RPing a stereotype. But in a grognard's world that has every Druid be part of a strict Druidic order and every Barbarian uncomfortable with crowds, such a suggestion wouldn't work. They are two conflicting ideals. The latter puts far more emphasis on the class, while the former puts the emphasis on the character. Neither is wrong.

What is wrong is personally attacking other posters because they disagree, Tetrasodium. There may be arrogant "Cartmans" as you phrased it, but if you have a problem then settle it by the Ignore or Report buttons, or even by PMing them or the mods. Regardless of how you feel you are treated, you have no right to actively foment a hostile atmosphere.

[Yuroch Kern]

Been wanting to play a Land Druid because you rarely see one and started doing so theoretic builds.

I am having issues getting a decent AC on one.
They have Barkskin but it's Concentration.

Anything I can do to bump AC to something a bit better than 16?

There are a crap-ton of options, yo. First, are you playing single-class? Then jacking up your Dex to 16 and Medium Armor Master with hide and a shield will net you a 17 AC. Or an 18 Dex with leather and shield w/o a feat. I take it that you are shopping for a non-concentration, non-dispellable AC, neh?

I can only assume such things without a level or stat array. Continuing on, you could dip a single fighter level to acquire the Defense style for another point to the suggestions above, especially if your Dex is 14 or less. A single dip wouldn't really hurt. A couple levels of monk might be the next option, as was mentioned waaaay near the beginning. 16's in both Dex and Wis would be possible with point buy and human/half-elf, and then pickup maybe Dual-Wielder for another +1 AC. Of course, you would also have ki for a couple free dodge actions. This wouldn't really synergize too well with Wild Shape maybe, but you're thinking Land Circle, so it should be fine! Another thought would be Magic Initiate for Mage Armor. Lasts longer than Barkskin, non-concentration, and it won't cut into your spell slots. Also, a 14 Dex with shield will get your 17 AC.

You probably noticed I'm only going to 17 AC with this...you seemed to only need better than Barkskin. Heck, if you roll for stats and somehow get that 20 Dex like a boss, then leather plus shield is 18 AC, 20 with Magic Initiates' Mage Armor for 8 hours. Sound good?

[DeathChallenged]

Obviously the logical conclusion is that dominate or similar spells can't force a druid to wear metal armour at all because it's in the rules that a druid won't wear it. :p

[Dr. Cliché]

I think it is also important that there are no rules for loosing class features.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised that there are no rules for a Warlock losing class features. Given that your powers are based on a pact with a powerful being, I'd have thought there would mechanical consequences if you refuse to serve that being or actively work against it.

I really liked when the Devs said it was more a guideline than a rule, opens more possibilities for more fun.

Yeah, I think saying something like 'most druids will not wear metal armour' or 'druid orders do not permit their members to wear metal armour' would have solved a lot of issues. You still have the vast majority of druids eschewing metal armour, but you also have the possibility of exceptions.

What I find interesting about this, how often does someone bother to ask if a shield is made of metal or not in-game?

Seriously, thinking back,I don’t think I could pinpoint any shield in our 5e games as being metal or wood, because mechanically they are the exact same thing and no one bothers to mention whether any particular shield is one or the other.

Yeah, the material a given shield is made out of is generally irrelevant (even if the DM mentions it, it's forgotten almost immediately).

Still, I was interested in terms of how much (if any) metal is permitted within the armour of a druid. Would a metal band around the edge of a shield be too much? If so, how does that differ from a sword or tool? The band is unlikely to even make contact with the druid's skin.

I agree in some points with you, but in the end, the only thing you are going to get from insulting someone (doesn't matter how good your point is) is to get ignored (and just lose someone to debate with)

The thing is, even if you cut out the insults,we were basically talking past each other. I was trying to make the point that, whilst druids refusing to wear metal is RAW, there appears no be no reason for it in fluff or mechanics. Also, it is very inconsistent given that druids can freely wear any amount of metal so long as it doesn't improve their AC. What I got in response could be summed up as 'Previous editions did it.', 'Reasons don't matter.' and 'It's RAW'. The former is unhelpful at best (especially since, as I already pointed out, 5e removed all mechanical penalties for druids wearing armour), the second amounts to 'because I say so' and the latter is something I never contested in the first place. Hence, I think it's fair to say that there wasn't much of a debate happening (even if we had been perfectly civil with one another).

If anything, I think DivisibleByZero and I blocking each other has indirectly improved the overall tone of the debate.

[Cybren]

Yeah, I think saying something like 'most druids will not wear metal armour' or 'druid orders do not permit their members to wear metal armour' would have solved a lot of issues. You still have the vast majority of druids eschewing metal armour, but you also have the possibility of exceptions.

if they wrote that, what would happen is every druid that actually gets played will wear metal armor. It would be meaningless.

[DivisibleByZero]

if they wrote that, what would happen is every druid that actually gets played will wear metal armor. It would be meaningless.

Exactly. The better solution is: None of them can/will without DM approval. Which is exactly what the rules are.

[War_lord]

Yep, if they changed it to a fluff "most Druids don't wear metal armour" every single Druid character would end up being the super special exception to the rule.