Land Druid and it's AC problems

[FinnS]

Yes Cartman, which goes back to a sad little gm like you yourself practically admitted was only for devils advocate has only the option of "I refuse to allow you to decide that your character is willing to make that choice & you will respect my authoratah". GM's who emulate that aspect of cartman tend to not last very long as players tend to migrate away from it.

I'm not making a choice for your character, YOU made that "choice" when you chose to be a Druid.
If wearing metal armor is that important to you, then don't CHOOSE to be a Druid.
It really is that simple.

Heh you can call me Cartman all you want (my players will definitely get a good laugh out of it when I show them).
To be honest, if a player comes to me during creation and says (like was suggested earlier) hey I'm thinking about rolling a Dwarf Druid but I feel that being a Dwarf, I shouldn't have the aversion to using metal armor. I'm quite likely to agree and let them ignore that restriction.

However, if a player simply shows up with their Druid character in hand wearing half-plate that when asked, they answer that their character doesn't subscribe to some fluff rp rule...That my friend is sooooo the wrong answer heh

Players can justify a hell of a lot of "optional" choices with some smart and creative RP.
What is not going to get it allowed is a bunch of meta bull**** of which about 80-90% of this thread has involved.

[Tetrasodium]

What a strange picture of the collaborative process that if a GM says 'uh don't the rules say you can't really do that'; your response is 'how dare you stifle my creativity which is in no way a power grab; I'm outta here!'

Druids not wearing metal is at the very least the default setting assumption... has it come up in any game that a player feels upset by this in a way that isn't a clear grab for a few more AC?

Thank you for bringing that up. Since FinnS by his own admission is playing devils advocate in #102 I will operate under the expectation that you are doing the same rather than embodyingthe more sad & sorry gm style options.

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]

As FinnS & others have clearly shown, they & the cartmanesque gm's who draw inspiration from the devils advocating over a legacy footnote that should have been errata'd away long ago... there is no discussion to be had & what little discussion they are willing to have is at times explicitly forbidden. Meanwhile all of the sacred cows from past editions have all been universally sain or wildly hobbled by restrictions that are so overly broad it would be difficult indeed to not fit within it (ie paladin oaths, cleric alignment/edged weapons, evasion/uncanny dodge in medium/heavy armor, etc). Both sides of the sad & sorry "debate" over druids using the remaining 4 of the 5 medium armor options beyond hide admit that it is entirely just a roleplaying restriction & one of the biggest most obvious cornerstones of 5th edition is to get those out of the way from everyone having fun.

All a player wanting to play a druid not fitting within the stereotype of the hippy flowerchild druid that Gygax or one of his buds was hoping to bang 4-5ish decades ago needs to do is say to a gm who rejects that cornerstone of 5th edition is "nah, my character would rather take the penalty for wearing metal armor & oh look... there isn't one."

[FinnS]

Thank you for bringing that up. Since FinnS by his own admission is playing devils advocate in #102 I will operate under the expectation that you are doing the same rather than embodyingthe more sad & sorry gm style options.


As FinnS & others have clearly shown, they & the cartmanesque gm's who draw inspiration from the devils advocating over a legacy footnote that should have been errata'd away long ago... there is no discussion to be had & what little discussion they are willing to have is at times explicitly forbidden. Meanwhile all of the sacred cows from past editions have all been universally sain or wildly hobbled by restrictions that are so overly broad it would be difficult indeed to not fit within it (ie paladin oaths, cleric alignment/edged weapons, evasion/uncanny dodge in medium/heavy armor, etc). Both sides of the sad & sorry "debate" over druids using the remaining 4 of the 5 medium armor options beyond hide admit that it is entirely just a roleplaying restriction & one of the biggest most obvious cornerstones of 5th edition is to get those out of the way from everyone having fun.

All a player wanting to play a druid not fitting within the stereotype of the hippy flowerchild druid that Gygax or one of his buds was hoping to bang 4-5ish decades ago needs to do is say to a gm who rejects that cornerstone of 5th edition is "nah, my character would rather take the penalty for wearing metal armor & oh look... there isn't one."

As I said, this is so the wrong answer heh
Since you feel you can peg me as a "Cartman" DM I guess I'm allowed to peg you back.
I'm thinking you are either a "Rebel without a cause" player that purposefully picks or does stuff to bring about a confrontation in an attempt to balance what you feel is a self identified grandly important issue.
Or, you are a "special snowflake" player that takes being different to the extreme.

Based on your posts in this thread and the additude that goes with them, I'm leaning towards the former.
From this point forward I will simply refer to you as James or Mr. Dean or just Jimmy most likely kkthx.

[Tetrasodium]

As I said, this is so the wrong answer heh
Since you feel you can peg me as a "Cartman" DM I guess I'm allowed to peg you back.
I'm thinking you are either a "Rebel without a cause" player that purposefully picks or does stuff to bring about a confrontation in an attempt to balance what you feel is a self identified issue.
Or, you are a "special snowflake" player that takes being different to the extreme.

Based on your posts in this thread and the additude that goes with them, I'm leaning towards the former.
From this point forward I will simply refer to you as James or Mr. Dean or just Jimmy most likely kkthx.

actually that they you seem to be taking offense to is in reference to "the more sad & sorry gm style options." where you are specifically excluded by virtue of your practical admission to playing devils advocate when you said how you would do a bunch of things that AL prevents you from doing in an AL game and said you would make a houserule to take the choice of what merges/is worn/drops away from the player it's explicitly given to by declaring that it falls to the ground & needs them to run around picking it up later when the same post you were saying it in reply to pointed out the AL rule that removes the ability to houserule other options to the point of even talking about that rule in the post itself (#102). It's both amusing & ironic that you shot so many of the points you were devils advocating for to death in the same post.

Also by the way "attitude" is spelled with only one "d"

[tkuremento]

actually that they you seem to be taking offense to is in reference to "the more sad & sorry gm style options." where you are specifically excluded by virtue of your practical admission to playing devils advocate when you said how you would do a bunch of things that AL prevents you from doing in an AL game and said you would make a houserule to take the choice of what merges/is worn/drops away from the player it's explicitly given to by declaring that it falls to the ground & needs them to run around picking it up later when the same post you were saying it in reply to pointed out the AL rule that removes the ability to houserule other options to the point of even talking about that rule in the post itself (#102). It's both amusing & ironic that you shot so many of the points you were devils advocating for to death in the same post.

Also by the way "attitude" is spelled with only one "d"

I reply to a typo with a funny picture of said typo and no one bats an eye
You reply to a typo and try to act like a BAMF?

[GraakosGraakos]

Are you kidding me right now?
I feel like you must be.

It doesn't matter if they can wear metal armor. They will not wear metal armor.
Fighter: "Here, wear this half-plate because you're proficient."
Druid: "No. I will not put that on. It is unnatural for man to be clad in metal."
Whether or not he physically can wear it is irrelevant, because he won't put it on.

I played an Underdark land druid Half Orc that used metal armor and would not shut up about how much better Stalagmites were than trees. It didn't break anything at all, honestly.

[ad_hoc]

just make it out of bone, man. If a DM denies you both the metal and bone flavor, he never wanted you playing druid in the first places and is unfit to DM

Or we all just want to play D&D.

If a new player tried to pull this sort of thing at our table we wouldn't invite them back. It's not just up to the DM either, everyone at the table is playing the same game and is there to have fun.

We actually just started up a new campaign with a new player who chose Druid. He clearly understood the rule. He read the Druid class and it said he can have light and medium armour but no metal so he read the armour section and chose a non-metal one.

It didn't even cross his mind to try to argue about wearing metal or to fabricate some other type of material.

[Tetrasodium]

Or we all just want to play D&D.

If a new player tried to pull this sort of thing at our table we wouldn't invite them back. It's not just up to the DM either, everyone at the table is playing the same game and is there to have fun.

We actually just started up a new campaign with a new player who chose Druid. He clearly understood the rule. He read the Druid class and it said he can have light and medium armour but no metal so he read the armour section and chose a non-metal one.

It didn't even cross his mind to try to argue about wearing metal or to fabricate some other type of material.

Presumably a campaign that you are just starting is started at level one

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to
the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) a wooden shield or (b) any simple weapon
• (a) a scimitar or (b) any simple melee weapon
• Leather armor, an explorer’s pack, and a druidic focus

There is no more "choosing" involved in that leather armor starting gear than there is a bard, rogue, or warlock starting with the same leather armor. The only difference is that like the fighter, cleric, & warlock druids have the proficiency to use better armors than they start with if they later buy or find it.
Honestly I think the obnoxiously complete lack of knowledge about the druid class from so many of the "no metal armor" folks is what makes it into such a touchy subject.... for example the attempt to pass off "• Leather armor, an explorer’s pack, and a druidic focus" as some sort of deliberate choice for a level 1 druid to make rather than throwing it away & deciding to run around naked instead. Sadly it's not the first such example in this thread alone (i.e. FinnS in a single post #102 finally accepting that AL explicitly forbids house rules and immediately claiming in the same post that he would change the wildshape rule to take the choice of what merges/drops/is worn away from the player by deciding as gm what would drop rather than the player after requoting the entire relevant section where that choice is very clearly given explicitly to the druid character's player with the gm only getting to decide if it is "practical" for the new form to wear something). People don't always react very kindly to what appears to be the uninformed, deliberately obtuse, and/or willfully blind, trying to tell them how to decide how they should play their character for them just because (at best) they felt like devils advocating & a straight faced hardline ad absurdum stance was easier.

[FinnS]

actually that they you seem to be taking offense to is in reference to "the more sad & sorry gm style options." where you are specifically excluded by virtue of your practical admission to playing devils advocate when you said how you would do a bunch of things that AL prevents you from doing in an AL game and said you would make a houserule to take the choice of what merges/is worn/drops away from the player it's explicitly given to by declaring that it falls to the ground & needs them to run around picking it up later when the same post you were saying it in reply to pointed out the AL rule that removes the ability to houserule other options to the point of even talking about that rule in the post itself (#102). It's both amusing & ironic that you shot so many of the points you were devils advocating for to death in the same post.

Also by the way "attitude" is spelled with only one "d"

Well first off, attacking someone's grammar is always a sure sign that one is losing an argument. You know that right?

Second, I never once mentioned the AL until you said I couldn't solve the issue with my own campaign suggestions in an AL session.
To which I agreed but since those same rules that prevent a DM from overstepping in the AL also prevent a Druid from ever donning metal armor in the first place, you actually didn't make any valid points heh.

Thirdly, not once have I taken offence (I'm Canadian, this IS how we spell offence just for future grammar references) at calling me a Cartman DM. I laughed about it and still am in fact.

Fourthly, my main suggestion throughout this entire thread about a Druid wearing metal armor has been "discuss it with your DM first".
I have also made suggestions that a DM running a non-AL campaign can use to work with the players to get around the restriction.
The only time I have responded with Cartman like responses was when you, among others, decided that one shouldn't even need to discuss it with the DM with no reasonable RP solutions or discussion but instead went full bore with a bunch of meta bull**** attacking the game and the creators of the game.
My response was dictated by the initialization.

And of course once again, as far as the whole "a DM can't make choices for my character" crap...The DM isn't making a choice for their character. The player made that choice when they chose to be a Druid.
Like I said, there is no spoon.

[Vaz]

I give up.

Edit; Attacking grammar is no sign of losing an argument. It's a sign of finding other things to talk about devaluing the basis of your argument, which is pertinent considering the use of language and what it means in an RP game.

Edit 2; i do appreciate the irony that it is not grammar but more spelling. That you conflate the two make it even more pertinent to the context of the discussion over "what words mean".

[Giant2005]

I'd let a Druid wear metal armor if they really insisted on it, but the character would still be dubious about the whole thing - they are violating everything they believe. It would be possible, but I'd give them penalties for essentially being perpetually pessimistic due to the stigma they are placing on themselves. Something like being permanently under the effects of the Bane spell while wearing metal armor would do the trick.

[FinnS]

I give up.

Edit; Attacking grammar is no sign of losing an argument. It's a sign of finding other things to talk about devaluing the basis of your argument, which is pertinent considering the use of language and what it means in an RP game.

Edit 2; i do appreciate the irony that it is not grammar but more spelling. That you conflate the two make it even more pertinent to the context of the discussion over "what words mean".

Pssst...There is no spoon. No really, there isn't.

[Vaz]

I'd let a Druid wear metal armor if they really insisted on it, but the character would still be dubious about the whole thing

Why are you telling a character what they believe in?

[FinnS]

Why are you telling a character what they believe in?

He's not, he's telling the player of the character that made the choice to be a Druid.

[Giant2005]

Why are you telling a character what they believe in?

I'm not - their class is. I'm just thinking of penalties that are less extreme than simply not being a Druid anymore like the book states.

[Spellbreaker26]

Honestly, I think one of biggest of resistance for the rule is because, as has been pointed out by both sides, it is a roleplaying rule. Even Paladins give leeway in the sense that the tenets of their oaths are very flexible and vague enough to work for a variety of characters, but this one is not. It declares that no matter what Druid you make, or even if they aren't a Druid in the actual world, they are forced to believe that worked metal is anathema to be worn (though not to use...).

The dwarf Druid of the mountain who is heavily invested in metals from the same? Nope. The multiclasser who was cast out of the Druidic order for believing that they needed to aggressively defend the forests? Nope. The rogue assassin who infiltrated the order and learned their techniques solely so he could use the shapeshifting to murder more adeptly? Nope, and he has nothing in common in terms of actual beliefs with the Druids.

It's not a balance rule, or patching an exploit. It only serves to restrict a character without a real reason. Every similar restriction in the book is optional, but apparently not this one. It would be like if the Warlocks had a rule saying "You must always lust for more power." Both are arbitrary role playing restrictions.

The problem is that there isn't a given mechanical effect for a druid that wears metal armour. You can't spellcast or shapeshift in it? You don't count as having proficiency? Either would be good. Or what even counts as "metal" armour? Does studded leather count? They just plonk it on that they "don't". It's in the proficiency area, so I think that lends credence to the "doesn't have proficiency" argument, but it's pretty vague.

But, it should be said, for some of those examples you mention I think Nature Cleric - which not only can wear armour, but also heavy armour - would be more thematically appropriate.

[Vaz]

I'm not - their class is. I'm just thinking of penalties that are less extreme than simply not being a Druid anymore like the book states.

You heard it here guys, that things not wearing metal armour are druids.

Why is a Druid is defined by not wearing metal armour? Because some guy in an office paying homage to a sacred cow is earning his paycheck and telling people how to RP his character.

Why aren't nature clerics bound by it? Or Vengeance Paladins? Or multiclass Druids who don't take Druid first? Or Faerie Warlocks?

Noone doubts that "that is what the book says". What we're questioning is that the book isn't actually accounting for anything outside of what that guy copy pasted. Or the sense of it. Or what happens if they do wear it.

[Kadzar]

I see there not being penalties for druids wearing metal armor similar to there not being penalties for a paladin accidentally breaking their oath: it's like that so a DM doesn't have to constantly police your actions to see if they need to punish you. But, just like a paladin who completely ignores their oath is clearly being a bad paladin (morally bad, that is. Such a thing is still valid roleplay), a druid who wears metal armor is being a bad druid, and such a thing should not be encouraged as a perfectly valid tactic for druids anymore than slaughtering orphans and selling their organs should be a perfectly valid money-making scheme for paladins.

[FinnS]

You heard it here guys, that things not wearing metal armour are druids.

Why is a Druid is defined by not wearing metal armour? Because some guy in an office paying homage to a sacred cow is earning his paycheck and telling people how to RP his character.

Why aren't nature clerics bound by it? Or Vengeance Paladins? Or multiclass Druids who don't take Druid first? Or Faerie Warlocks?

Noone doubts that "that is what the book says". What we're questioning is that the book isn't actually accounting for anything outside of what that guy copy pasted. Or the sense of it. Or what happens if they do wear it.

Again, if wearing metal armor is that important or if you disagree with/refuse to respect the ethos that comes with being a Druid, then the answer is simple...don't play a Druid.
You have a choice.
No one sitting in an office paying homage to a sacred cow is making that choice for you.

[Astofel]

The way I see this is simple: the rules state that druids will not wear metal armour. It's not some kind of fluff sidenote, it says it right there under proficiencies under class features. A DM who says that your druid won't put on that metal armour isn't a sad, bad DM, they're a DM who's following the rules as written. Likewise, a DM who says your druid can put on that metal armour isn't a bad DM either, they're a DM who's got a house rule in their game, and that is fine. If, by some incredibly unlikely circumstance, the druid is in a position where they're being forced to put on metal armour or Bad Things will happen in a setting where they won't wear metal armour, then I have no problems with them putting it on, they just might feel icky afterwards.

In any case, the metal armour argument isn't what this thread is supposed to be about, so let's address the land druid's AC issues. To which I say, it doesn't have any. The land druid's AC is comparable to sorcerers and wizards even without metal, and it's not like the land druid is going to be on the front lines anyway, they don't really need a lot of AC to stand back and hurl spells about.

[Unoriginal]

A typical Druid wearing metal armor on purpose is kind of like a Cleric of Boccob saying "actually, I think magic is useless and shouldn't be used."

The problem is that there isn't a given mechanical effect for a druid that wears metal armour. You can't spellcast or shapeshift in it? You don't count as having proficiency? Either would be good. Or what even counts as "metal" armour? Does studded leather count? They just plonk it on that they "don't". It's in the proficiency area, so I think that lends credence to the "doesn't have proficiency" argument, but it's pretty vague.

There is no need for mechanical effects. A Druid is *capable* of wearing metal armor. They just won't, if they have the choice.

Why is a Druid is defined by not wearing metal armour? Because some guy in an office paying homage to a sacred cow is earning his paycheck and telling people how to RP his character.

Why are some Sorcerers dragon-blooded? Why are codes important for Paladins? Why must Warlocks make pact with otherworldly entities?

Why aren't nature clerics bound by it? Or Vengeance Paladins? Or multiclass Druids who don't take Druid first? Or Faerie Warlocks?

Multiclass Druids won't wear metal armor either. For the Cleric, Paladin or Warlock, it's because they're not following the Druidic tenets

[Spellbreaker26]

There is no need for mechanical effects. A Druid is *capable* of wearing metal armor. They just won't, if they have the choice.

In the same way a devotion paladin won't kill an innocent person? Except that we have rules for what happens if they do that and don't say sorry.

Saying no proficiency would make sense - they simply don't know how to wear it because they were never trained in it.

[Tanarii]

In the same way a devotion paladin won't kill an innocent person? Except that we have rules for what happens if they do that and don't say sorry.

Saying no proficiency would make sense - they simply don't know how to wear it because they were never trained in it.

The it wouldn't apply to multiclass characters. Whether or not that's a bad thing is a different matter of course.

Although I personally agree with you, it probably should have just been a simple proficiency thing. They'd have had to add something about how that worked with feats: ie would you have to first spend a feat on Medium, before selecting heavy? Would you have to take light (for studded) before you could take medium.

Also it's worth noting that the restriction is to Leather or Hide using PHB armors. Studded leather description includes metal (rivets or spikes).

[djreynolds]

Land has good spells, misty step is one

[Citan]

Are you kidding me right now?
I feel like you must be.

It doesn't matter if they can wear metal armor. They will not wear metal armor.
Fighter: "Here, wear this half-plate because you're proficient."
Druid: "No. I will not put that on. It is unnatural for man to be clad in metal."
Whether or not he physically can wear it is irrelevant, because he won't put it on.

You are perfectly right, at least for a pure Druid, or any character having spent at least half his career as a Druid (imo, YMMV).

Now, a single dip in Druid for a Nature Cleric for example would imo make this forbiddance totally irrelevant, provided the player has made his character around the fact that he started as a Druid but had then an epiphany and decided to just keep his acquired knowledge but completely throw himself into a new path.

That is exactly why imo the "official" Sage Advice basically says "normally Druid can't wear metal armor, but you may find a reason to make it acceptable by your DM".
It's not exactly a houserule since they don't totally close the door (aka "You shan't ever wear metal. Don't even try") and stress that it's not a balance-geared rule, but they also stress that the fluff makes it an "obvious" rule, and doing otherwise is totally up to the DM (same way as customizing a background).

That's a nice way to basically tell "if your character has a strong enough justification it's okay", which is totally coherent with the choice of words ("won't" instead of "can't" as you explained).

A typical Druid wearing metal armor on purpose is kind of like a Cleric of Boccob saying "actually, I think magic is useless and shouldn't be used."
Multiclass Druids won't wear metal armor either. For the Cleric, Paladin or Warlock, it's because they're not following the Druidic tenets

That's only your opinion and your ruling as a DM. Not the official ruling which is "it depends".
For example, why would you forbid a character who, after his first level as a Druid, decided he would best serve his convictions by swinging mace and preach a Nature divinity's values (Nature Cleric)? Or become a Hunter roaming through country to dispatch the malevolent ones who just exploit the environment without any regard for its balance (Ranger)?

The only gripe I would have if allowing metal armor would be for the Wild Shape (I think that this feature and accompanying fluff is one of the main reasons for metal forbiddance in the first place, since it's not an "organic" material), so I would forbid its use while he is wearing metal armor.
But apart from that... One who threw aside his Druid tenets for another way in life has no reason to be still bound by them. And I see no fluff reason to block the use of whatever magic he learnt either.

For a character such as Druid 5 / x 5 however, I would stick to the rules... Or, if player REALLY wants to be able to wear metal, I would design a custom sidequest he has to fulfill to earn that right (and still, whatever happens, no Wild Shape while wearing metal).

TL;DR: for multiclass character, I strongly feel it's necessary to take into account the reasons of the multiclass and the respective importance of each's fluff, in addition to the character's goals/values, before barring/allowing metal wearing.

[DivisibleByZero]

The problem is that there isn't a given mechanical effect for a druid that wears metal armour. You can't spellcast or shapeshift in it? You don't count as having proficiency? Either would be good. Or what even counts as "metal" armour? Does studded leather count? They just plonk it on that they "don't". It's in the proficiency area, so I think that lends credence to the "doesn't have proficiency" argument, but it's pretty vague.

They don't spell out a mechanical effect for it happening because.... wait for it.... ready?
It is NEVER going to happen, because the Druid refuses to put it on!
Houserule it otherwise if you want, but those are the rules and that is the reason that there is no need to lay out a mechanical effect for if it happens.... because it isn't going to happen.

You are perfectly right, at least for a pure Druid, or any character having spent at least half his career as a Druid (imo, YMMV).

Now, a single dip in Druid for a Nature Cleric for example would imo make this forbiddance totally irrelevant, provided the player has made his character around the fact that he started as a Druid but had then an epiphany and decided to just keep his acquired knowledge but completely throw himself into a new path.

That is exactly why imo the "official" Sage Advice basically says "normally Druid can't wear metal armor, but you may find a reason to make it acceptable by your DM".

A multiclass may be your reason to allow it as DM, but it is by no means going to be a general reason that every DM should use. The bottom line is that this is a choice that the character (NOT the player!) makes, and it is out of the player's hands. It is something that your character believes. Beliefs aren't easily abandoned.
The player can ask, and the DM can choose to allow it, but beyond that asking it is out of the player's hands.

[Citan]

T
A multiclass may be your reason to allow it as DM, but it is by no means going to be a general reason that every DM should use. The bottom line is that this is a choice that the character (NOT the player!) makes, and it is out of the player's hands. It is something that your character believes. Beliefs aren't easily abandoned.
The player can ask, and the DM can choose to allow it, but beyond that asking it is out of the player's hands.

I never said such thing... Confer to my "TL;DR" in my previous post.

[djreynolds]

I will give you a natural form of scale mail.

Why not?

Its not OP, its the same AC as in the end as chainmail. 14+2=16 good enough call it a day.

Perhaps it only lasts for a week and then you have to re-gather supplies. It can only take so much damage before it degrades.

Be creative and think out of the box.

Base it off you survival skill, you roll a certain number you can make tortoise shell armor

Fair enough. I bigger problems, my team-mates thought it was a good idea for my fighter with winged boots to try and capture a dragon turtle with a mirror of life-stealing. IT DID NOT WORK AT ALL. WHY THEY CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA I WILL NEVER KNOW. AND WHY I SAID YES? IT COST 75HP, INITIALLY, broken mirror and everything came out into the ocean.

[Delusion]

Clearly the best option is to have the a party member trick the druid into thinking the metal breastplate is actually made of dragon scales.

[ad_hoc]

Because some guy in an office paying homage to a sacred cow is earning his paycheck and telling people how to RP his character.

This can be said of anything in the books.

Why are we playing D&D?

Personally I want to play D&D and so I use the D&D rules. I want the Druids to actually be Druids.

I wouldn't play with anyone who cares more about getting a +1 AC than playing by the rules. I think the roleplaying rules as they have been called are actually more important than most of the other ones. I'd be more inclined to houserule away other sorts of things, but the things that guide character's identities? They need to stay.

Otherwise I'll just play Magical Tea Party.