Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Naanomi]

At the end of the day, my assumption as GM is this: there are rules to this game. Most are are good rules, a small handful are bad enough that I might need to step in and change them, and a few walk the line of maybe being stupid for various reasons but we are all playing the same game so until it breaks something we are just going to stick with it. Druid armor is that latter category. This isn't me being a bad GM, this isn't me worshiping RAW, this is just a stance that everyone at the table have some assumptions about what is going to go on in regard to the rules before we sit down.

Can there be exceptions? Sure, talk to me about it... but don't assume I'll say yes before we begin. There are billions of character concepts in the world, if armored druid doesn't work try another... no matter how much you have played you haven't burned through them all... and if the only way you can possibly have fun is to play a concept that I have decided I won't adjust the existing rules for, then hey maybe I'll see you next campaign; I'd love to play with you again someday.

I've turned away a character someone wanted to bring from another table because of their ridiculous magic item collection, I told them they could play if we 'set aside' some of the items they had because they didn't fit with what my campaign expectations were. He chose not to play with me in that game. We were still friends, we gamed together other times and will still do so. While there was discussion going on, even perhaps debate, no one accused anyone of power mongering and we were all adults about the results in the end.

Your wizard engraves it on a special slate tablet instead of a book?.. sure
Your monk draws hid ki through his ancestral grateaxe & needs to keep it strapped to his back in order to do so?... sure
Your sorcerer went to a university where he learned how to use his powers?... sure, idgaf
Your cleric of war was sent out by his church of the dark six to do pr by providing blessings from the mockery/traveler/etc to the soldiers but doesn't believe in the gods so much as the ideals & concepts we use them to represent?... um, ok.

Wizard, Monk, Sorcerer... all examples of characters mechanically weaker or neutral in regards to their RP choices; all immediately approved without investigation. I play a sorcerer (in an AL game) that hates their own magic but can't stop it, I take no spells with material components, I function just fine despite the self-imposed limitation.

The Cleric: depends on the setting. In Forgotten Realms, this wouldn't fly, in Eberron it would be fine. How specifics of magic works, particularly divine magic, in a setting are the domain of the DM and the setting writers. It isn't anyone powertripping, it is an assumption of the setting that both GM and player are sharing to create a story in.

[Tetrasodium]

Wizard, Monk, Sorcerer... all examples[see above] of characters mechanically weaker or neutral in regards to their RP choices; all immediately approved without investigation.

Wearing of the remaining 4 of the 5 medium armor options in metal variants is likewise mechanically neutral unless you as the gm insist on punishing the 5th edition druid for the fact that 3.5 druids could be built in excessively powerful ways by making those 4 medium armor variants weaker if made from bone/ironwood/whatever as many people on the "it says they won't wear metal armor" side have suggested... in some cases they suggested things that were substantially weaker with lower ac, significantly reduced durability to require regular replacement based on how much damage the druid takes while wearing it, increased cost, crafting checks, and time spent to hunt the components regularly all in one single example.

You can't say that it's fine & mechanically neutral when any other class does it and then not admit to simply being unable to refuse the urge to punish the druid if the druid does it. If you insist on punishing the druid, be honest with yourself & the players at your table.

[Naanomi]

My setting assumptions are built of 1e and 2e restrictions on Druid armor; when most of the details of my home campaign setting were created. 3.Xs tier system has nothing to do with it

[FinnS]

Your wizard engraves it on a special slate tablet instead of a book?.. sure
Your monk draws hid ki through his ancestral grateaxe & needs to keep it strapped to his back in order to do so?... sure
Your sorcerer went to a university where he learned how to use his powers?... sure, idgaf
Your cleric of war was sent out by his church of the dark six to do pr by providing blessings from the mockery/traveler/etc to the soldiers but doesn't believe in the gods so much as the ideals & cpncepts we use them to represent?... um, ok.




Like all the peta folks in coal country with coal miner relatives who aren't going to like in the dark without electricity even if they consider electrical efficiency to be important? The celtic people certainly did not have any problems with metal as evidenced by nauda silverhand & what remains we have since dug up any more than the germanic barbarians. The only difference is that there is a reason why a barbarian won't wear armor (ie it's worse than UAD) while even the designers of 5e admit that the metal armor thing is just a sacred cow that skipped the slaughter.

With that said, while a person raised in a place where trees/wood are an exotic & bizarre import from some far off unnatural place (i.e. above ground) because they are a dwarf/kobold/drow/from underdark/etc, they are going to have a different viewpoint on what is natural than one who worships the oak & yew trees they feel as bizarre.

Why are they bizarre?... because by raw (since some people's entire argument is "no justification matters because raw says they wont & it's unreasonable to expect any decent gm to justify it in any way shape or form") the rp fluff actually supports them having a tie to a different part of nature


but when the almost immediately defenders started with forcefully dismissing things like those with "raw says they won't, you picked your class now live with it" while acting like justifying why one bit of raw trumps another bit of raw with even the thinnest veneer of fluff was the gold standard mark of a great gm who shall not be coached by the unwashed masses of experienced & practicing gm's who aren't really interested in either playing d&d or playing a role playing game as opposed to running a daycare.

Why are you continuing with this meta bull**** tirade about sacred cows and such when everyone in this thread has already said that they would be willing to work with the player on this in any homebrew campaign?

At this point, it simply seems like you don't feel you need to ask permission of your DM in order to ignore a rule/restriction and that makes you steaming mad for some reason.

You have said repeatedly that you wouldn't want me as your DM and even implied that I'm a bad one despite the fact that I have repeatedly said I would 100% work with the player on this.

I'll tell ya one thing though, if you were at my table and acted like you have in this thread, I wouldn't have to do a damned thing about it as the other players at the table would tell you to stfu long before I ever had to.

[Tetrasodium]

just

My setting assumptions are built of 1e and 2e restrictions on Druid armor; when most of the details of my home campaign setting were created. 3.Xs tier system has nothing to do with it

That's even worse because you are punishing the 5th edition druid for refluffing an irrelevant sacred cow by saying nonmetal options are not available and or must be worse in quality unless you are forcing wizards to spend days/weeks(?) preparing their spels like in 1st & second, placing level caps on all sorts of nonhuman races like elves & dwarves, placing Arcane spell failure rolls on any arcane/divine caster who wants to wear armor while casting, so on & so forth.

If bone/ironwood/etc equivalents are just as good & readily available as the metal variants, it is as mechanically neutral as all the other stuff you admitted to be.... otherwise you are punishing the 5th edition druid alone for sins of the past

[DivisibleByZero]

punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing
punishing

Choosing to not allow players to ignore rules that are included in the game, regardless of you how personally feel about those rules (rules which, I might add, are right there for the player to see when they choose to play that class), is not punishing anyone.
Please stop claiming that it is.

[Naanomi]

just

That's even worse because you are punishing the 5th edition druid for refluffing an irrelevant sacred cow by saying nonmetal options are not available and or must be worse in quality unless you are forcing wizards to spend days/weeks(?) preparing their spels like in 1st & second, placing level caps on all sorts of nonhuman races like elves & dwarves, placing Arcane spell failure rolls on any arcane/divine caster who wants to wear armor while casting, so on & so forth.

If bone/ironwood/etc equivalents are just as good & readily available as the metal variants, it is as mechanically neutral as all the other stuff you admitted to be.... otherwise you are punishing the 5th edition druid alone for sins of the past

Except that the rules maintained the Druid armor restrictions where it dropped the rest. If the rule had been dropped I would have changed things to fit, fine... as I'm sure I'll do to make adjustments to my setting's treatment of psionics when those rules are finalized.

For what it matters, nonmetal medium and heavy armors exist in my campaign just fine; but in most places are not as accessible and most (but not all) magic versions would be metal as a default.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that Druids need medium armor options to be 'fairly balanced', and denying it is nerfing them. I disagree. I think they are fine as is, and giving them more armor options is buffing them (though not to unacceptable levels if people go that route with house rules). Just like I think it isn't unfair to wizards that warlocks wear light armor, I don't think a Druids armor restriction is 'punishing' anyone mechanically

[dejarnjc]

This thread is funny. You have purists claiming that Druids WON'T wear metal armor. Sure, sure, I get it. It's what the books says. It's definitely not fluff, no not at all /s


But then I'd have to ask are you against lawful half-elves too? After all, the book very clearly says "Alignment. Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others' demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable."


Well... ****. Apparently my lawful good Half-Elf Paladin wasn't RAW.

[Tanarii]

I'm really baffled to see how some people here are defending the rule as "always 100% apply go f*** yourself" when the game creator themselves explicitely tell it can be waived.
(told in another way, they put -good- character concept above world fluff tradition. Which is imo the most sensible choice).
Sad, sad example of "thinking dictatorship" XD

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

Why are you continuing with this meta bull**** tirade about sacred cows and such when everyone in this thread has already said that they would be willing to work with the player on this in any homebrew campaign?

I know it's throwing fuel on the fire, but I wouldn't in my current home brew campaign, which will hopefully run the lifespan of 5e. (I might in a one shot.)

A) I have a lot of players rotating in and out of multiple sessions, and it's open table, similar to AL. So I prefer overarching rules that apply to everyone, not homebrew exceptions.

B) I've intentionally chosen to set up this campaign with a certain grognard flavor, and that includes strong class archetypes without major refluffing.

When (not if) a player comes asking if they could make this or that or the other a specific character exception, I say no and explain why. I point out it's in the campaign rules they read, including why. You did read those, right? Most commonly this happens with players asking for an exception to the no-multiclassing or no-feats rule, for "character concept" reasons, and using the argument "but it's not any more powerful mechanically". I haven't had anyone ask for an exception to the Druids won't wear Metal Amror rule yet, so I have no idea what argument they'd use, since the not mechanically more powerful argument doesn't apply in this case.

[RickAllison]

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


I know it's throwing fuel on the fire, but I wouldn't in my current home brew campaign, which will hopefully run the lifespan of 5e. (I might in a one shot.)

A) I have a lot of players rotating in and out of multiple sessions, and it's open table, similar to AL. So I prefer overarching rules that apply to everyone, not homebrew exceptions.

B) I've intentionally chosen to set up this campaign with a certain grognard flavor, and that includes strong class archetypes without major refluffing.

When (not if) a player comes asking if they could make this or that or the other a specific character exception, I say no and explain why. I point out it's in the campaign rules they read, including why. You did read those, right? Most commonly this happens with players asking for an exception to the no-multiclassing or no-feats rule, for "character concept" reasons, and using the argument "but it's not any more powerful mechanically". I haven't had anyone ask for an exception to the Druids won't wear Metal Amror rule yet, so I have no idea what argument they'd use, since the not mechanically more powerful argument doesn't apply in this case.

Just like with Naanomi, specific setting rules can fundamentally change classes to fit a certain expectation. Infernal Warlocks may be required to be Evil in a setting because the Devils there would refuse to give their power to someone without their goals aligning. A Paladin may have to follow specific variations of the tenets because only select orders possess the knowledge to become Paladins and so those not of the orders can't become them (and presumably there is either a needed ritual to take an oath or they hunt down Paladins who fall). Druids may have a fundamental belief that wearing metal armor or shields (but not apparently anything else...) is wrong and so mentally are bound to organic armor else they physically no longer are Druids.

Setting rules frame the world. While a player can request to break the norms (a fallen Paladin who is being hunted by his forme friends, a warlock whose devil patron gifted the powers out of gratitude for aid, a Druid who was taught by spirits of the mountain the ways of the Druid and so has fundamental beliefs that are equally rigid, but different, etc.), the DM knows whether it would even be a possible character in the world.

[FinnS]

I know it's throwing fuel on the fire, but I wouldn't in my current home brew campaign, which will hopefully run the lifespan of 5e. (I might in a one shot.)

A) I have a lot of players rotating in and out of multiple sessions, and it's open table, similar to AL. So I prefer overarching rules that apply to everyone, not homebrew exceptions.

B) I've intentionally chosen to set up this campaign with a certain grognard flavor, and that includes strong class archetypes without major refluffing.

When (not if) a player comes asking if they could make this or that or the other a specific character exception, I say no and explain why. I point out it's in the campaign rules they read, including why. You did read those, right? Most commonly this happens with players asking for an exception to the no-multiclassing or no-feats rule, for "character concept" reasons, and using the argument "but it's not any more powerful mechanically". I haven't had anyone ask for an exception to the Druids won't wear Metal Amror rule yet, so I have no idea what argument they'd use, since the not mechanically more powerful argument doesn't apply in this case.

Naw, I understand and that's fair.
The players know exactly what they will be sitting down for so it shouldn't be an issue.

[Unoriginal]

Your wizard engraves it on a special slate tablet instead of a book?.. sure
Your monk draws hid ki through his ancestral grateaxe & needs to keep it strapped to his back in order to do so?... sure
Your sorcerer went to a university where he learned how to use his powers?... sure, idgaf

And it's fine to agree to this. But don't act like Druid is the only class that has RAW RP restriction, or that it's just some guy worshiping a sacred cow.

Your cleric of war was sent out by his church of the dark six to do pr by providing blessings from the mockery/traveler/etc to the soldiers but doesn't believe in the gods so much as the ideals & cpncepts we use them to represent?... um, ok.

You ignored the part where my exemple talked about "no god nor concept".

This thread is funny. You have purists claiming that Druids WON'T wear metal armor. Sure, sure, I get it. It's what the books says. It's definitely not fluff, no not at all /s


But then I'd have to ask are you against lawful half-elves too? After all, the book very clearly says "Alignment. Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others' demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable."


Well... ****. Apparently my lawful good Half-Elf Paladin wasn't RAW.

Except the books clearly say that alignments tendencies aren't absolute.

[tkuremento]

This thread is funny. You have purists claiming that Druids WON'T wear metal armor. Sure, sure, I get it. It's what the books says. It's definitely not fluff, no not at all /s


But then I'd have to ask are you against lawful half-elves too? After all, the book very clearly says "Alignment. Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others' demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable."


Well... ****. Apparently my lawful good Half-Elf Paladin wasn't RAW.

Spoiler: PHB page 17

Show

Alignment
Most races have tendencies toward certain alignments, described in this entry. These are not binding for player characters, but considering why your dwarf is chaotic. for example, in defiance of lawful dwarf society can help you better define your character.

As you can see, not exactly the same. This is of course assuming there isn't a similar statement in the book about druid's nonmetal-ness.

[ad_hoc]

When (not if) a player comes asking if they could make this or that or the other a specific character exception, I say no and explain why. I point out it's in the campaign rules they read, including why. You did read those, right? Most commonly this happens with players asking for an exception to the no-multiclassing or no-feats rule, for "character concept" reasons, and using the argument "but it's not any more powerful mechanically". I haven't had anyone ask for an exception to the Druids won't wear Metal Amror rule yet, so I have no idea what argument they'd use, since the not mechanically more powerful argument doesn't apply in this case.

This is also why I don't allow it.

I like D&D the way it is. I like that there are classes and that those classes have restrictions.

It would be like if you are playing improv games and ignore the parameters of the game you are playing because that's just what you want to do and no one can tell you otherwise.

Well, the whole point is to come up with something within those parameters. That's the fun.

If your character won't wear metal armour, then they won't and saying otherwise is breaking the contract of the game.

[Socratov]

So if I'm following this right, DM's that won't let their Druids wear Metal Armor are wannabe tyrants who to crush all free will and player choice and are just the worst, and Players with Druids that want to wear Metal Armor are whiny special snowflakes who throw tantrums if they don't get their way.

The War on Straw certainly seems to be progressing nicely.

You know, I used to have a fairly dependable Zippo lighter laying about somewhere amidst my stuff....

[LordVonDerp]

At this point, it simply seems like you don't feel you need to ask permission of your DM in order to ignore a rule/restriction and that makes you steaming mad for some reason.

Except that there is no rule or restriction preventing a druid from wearing metal armor unless the DM creates one.

[Tetrasodium]

Spoiler: PHB page 17

Show

Alignment
Most races have tendencies toward certain alignments, described in this entry. These are not binding for player characters, but considering why your dwarf is chaotic. for example, in defiance of lawful dwarf society can help you better define your character.

As you can see, not exactly the same. This is of course assuming there isn't a similar statement in the book about druid's nonmetal-ness.

I'd say multiple statement in the DMG easily covering it is more than close enough to the phb

Spoiler: dmg26

Show

[/b]Listen to the players' ideas, and say yes if you can. [/b]
Even if you want all the characters to have grown up in
the starting town, consider allowing a recent arrival or
a transplant if the player's story is convincing enough.
Suggest alterations to a character's story so it better fits
your world, or weave the first threads of your campaign
into that story.

Spoiler: dmg263

Show

• Will the rule improve the game?
• Will my players like it?
If you're confident that the answer to both questions is
yes, then you have nothing to lose by giving it a try. Urge
your players to provide feedback. If the rule or game
element isn't functioning as intended or isn't adding
much to your game, you can refine it or ditch it. No
matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the
other way around.
Beware of adding anything to your game that allows
a character to concentrate on more than one effect at
a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action
per round, or attune to more than three magic items
at a time. Rules and game elements that override the
rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and
magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or
overcomplicate your game.

Spoiler: dmg287

Show

[quote]For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact
despite having no connection to a culture that normally
produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the
character's story and that of your world, rather than
shutting down possibilities. [quote]

The folks with settings time locked in the restrictions of previous editions better get to implementing ASF, restricting uncanny dodge/evasion to light armor, setting the number of hours/days/weeks it takes wizards to prepare spells of given levels, racial level caps, always x alignment restrictions, define the % of wealth a cleric(paladin too?) needs to "donate" to their church, so on and so forth.... That... or admit that it's not about preserving tradition & all about punishing druids for sins of the past to maintain this particular bit of fluff alone in absence of all the other bits fluff shot dead through the versions

[Unoriginal]

Except that there is no rule or restriction preventing a druid from wearing metal armor unless the DM creates one.

"PROFICIENCIES Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal) " PHB p.65

"SACRED PLANTS AND WOOD A druid holds certain plants to be sacred, particularl yalder, ash, birch,elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak,r owan, willow, and yew. Druids often use such plants as part of a spellcastíng focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe. Similarly, a druid uses such woods to make other objects, such as weapons and shields. Yew is assocíated wíth death and rebirth,so weapon handles for scimitars or sickles might be fashioned from it. Ash is associated with life and oak with strength. These woods make excellent hafts or whole weapons, such as clubs or quarterstaffs,as well as shields. Alder is assocíated wíth air,and it might be used for thrown weapons, such as darts or javelins. Druids from regions that lack the plants described here have chosen other plants to take on similar uses. For instance,a druid of a desert region might value the yucca tree and cactus plants." PHB p.66

"Multiclassing Proficiencies: Druid: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor use shields made of metal)" PHB p.164


And that's all what the game says about Druids and armor.

The folks with settings time locked in the restrictions of previous editions

Or you could be polite and consider that they choose to follow the restriction of this edition.

[Tanarii]

The folks with settings time locked in the restrictions of previous editions better get to implementing ASF, restricting uncanny dodge/evasion to light armor, setting the number of hours/days/weeks it takes wizards to prepare spells of given levels, define the % of wealth a cleric(paladin too?) needs to "donate" to their church, so on and so forth.... That... or admit that it's not about preserving tradition & all about punishing druids for sins of the past to maintain this particular bit of fluff alone in absence of all the other bits fluff shot dead through the versions

First of all, I'm locked in wanting something like the feel of BECMI, but with a looser version of 3e's skill system tacked on. Luckily for me, 5e provides something that approximates (roughly) that feeling in it's base rules, without the optional Feats and Multiclassing rules. So ... not really 3e at all, which didn't feel anything like BECMI. (edit: Running 5e ToTM really helps btw.)

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

Edit2:

Naw, I understand and that's fair.
The players know exactly what they will be sitting down for so it shouldn't be an issue.

For sure. I was jumping off your point to make it clear that technically, there's at least one person that in his current campaign wasn't willing to remove the rule for Druids to be allowed to (make the choice to) wear metal armor. But that is in no way an indictment of anyone that would be willing to do so. It's standing up to refute anyone trying to claim doing so is badwrongfun or Bad DM.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except that the restriction which states that a druid won't don metal armor is mentioned multiple times throughout the PHB.

Fixed it for you.

[Cybren]

Naw, I understand and that's fair.
The players know exactly what they will be sitting down for so it shouldn't be an issue.

even if they don't know when they're sitting down, the proper interaction when your request is rejected is:
"hey can I do this thing the books say my class never does"
"No"
"oh okay"

[Unoriginal]

Do people complain that by RAW, only a Rogue understand Thief Can't and only a Druid understand Druidic?

[tkuremento]

[QUOTE=Tetrasodium;21777905]I'd say multiple statement in the DMG easily covering it is more than close enough to the phb

Spoiler: dmg287

Show

[quote]For example, you might decide that bards, sorcerers,
warlocks, and wizards represent the magical traditions
of four different races or cultures. The bardic colleges
might be closed to everyone except elves, dragonborn
might be the only creatures capable of becoming
sorcerers, and all warlocks in your world might be
human. You could break that down still further: bards
of the College of Lore could be high elves, and bards
of the College of War could be wood elves. Gnomes
discovered the school of illusion, so all wizards who
specialize in that school are gnomes. Different human
cultures produce warlocks with different pacts, and
so on. Similarly, different cleric domains might reflect
entirely separate religions associated with different
races or cultures.
You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing
a player character to break these restrictions. Can a
half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic
traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact
despite having no connection to a culture that normally
produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and
use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the
character's story and that of your world, rather than
shutting down possibilities.

The folks with settings time locked in the restrictions of previous editions better get to implementing ASF, restricting uncanny dodge/evasion to light armor, setting the number of hours/days/weeks it takes wizards to prepare spells of given levels, racial level caps, always x alignment restrictions, define the % of wealth a cleric(paladin too?) needs to "donate" to their church, so on and so forth.... That... or admit that it's not about preserving tradition & all about punishing druids for sins of the past to maintain this particular bit of fluff alone in absence of all the other bits fluff shot dead through the versions

26 and 287 are referring to story if you look within context. Whilst 263 does say changing rules, that still falls under technical houserule. I'm not against homebrew, houserules, etc. However, that is what it is. Without that it simply states they will not wear metal armor, end statement.

Edit: I have no idea why this post looks so broken, it is simply what I got from clicking reply.

[DivisibleByZero]

Whilst 263 does say changing rules, that still falls under technical houserule. I'm not against homebrew, houserules, etc. However, that is what it is. Without that it simply states they will not wear metal armor, end statement.

Yeah, I find it hilarious that someone is using that particular blurb here.
DMG: Hey, if you want to be super restrictive in your game and only allow certain races to take certain classes/subclasses, you can totally do that, but you should be willing to have a little wiggle room.
Players: THAT MEANS MY DRUID CAN WEAR METAL ARMOR, BECAUSE THE DMG TELLS THE DM TO SAY YES!!!!!!!

[Tanarii]

Do people complain that by RAW, only a Rogue understand Thief Can't and only a Druid understand Druidic?

In my experience ... yes. Lots of people think it's stupid that no other class can learn it. And in campaigns that allow multiclassing, some players that want to think of class levels as a bundle of abilities with no explicit fluff attached don't like that their character must learn these languages.

[LordVonDerp]

I like D&D the way it is. I like that there are classes and that those classes have restrictions..

Well "the way it is" in 5th edition includes some druids who wear metal armor.

If your character won't wear metal armour, then they won't and saying otherwise is breaking the contract of the game.

Which means you can also be someone who will wear metal armor, and since character and class are completely independent from each other, said character can still be a druid.

[ad_hoc]

Well "the way it is" in 5th edition includes some druids who wear metal armor.


Which means you can also be someone who will wear metal armor, and since character and class are completely independent from each other, said character can still be a druid.

This simply isn't true.

I'm at a loss for anything else to say because the rules are crystal clear.

[Unoriginal]

Well "the way it is" in 5th edition includes some druids who wear metal armor.

Which Druids?

Which means you can also be someone who will wear metal armor, and since character and class are completely independent from each other, said character can still be a druid.

Characters and classes aren't completely independent from each others.

[tkuremento]

Characters and classes aren't completely independent from each others.

Agreed, unless they meant Character Level and Class Level, But that is just levels for determining certain abilities and has nothing to do with the restrictions put in place.

[Tanarii]

Characters and classes aren't completely independent from each others.

It depends if you're talking about the Class name, or an in-game label. For example, any character with the Acolyte background, or who is otherwise a priest in a religious order, might reasonable be called a cleric in-game. Or possibly only members of religious militaristic holy orders might. And priest of the old faith might be considered a Druid in a given campaign, be they Bard, Druid or Nature Cleric

Of course, given the (side issue) topic of discussion on Metal Armors is clearly about the Druid class, not an in-game label, the latter is irrelevant. Edit: Of course, someone who believes that character fluff is completely independent of mechanical package might think this is relevant.