"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands.
There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands.
There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
You would be incorrect.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
This is straight from the PHB under the main heading of Armor and Shields. There is in fact a form of Arcane failure. Its just that instead of being a chance it is now guaranteed.
So the concept is still there entirely and it's actually more harsh than I was thinking it was as I was only remembering the disadvantage part of the rule.
"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands. There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
You would be incorrect.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
This is straight from the PHB under the main heading of Armor and Shields. There is in fact a form of Arcane failure. Its just that instead of being a chance it is now guaranteed.
So the concept is still there entirely and it's actually more harsh than I was thinking it was as I was only remembering the disadvantage part of the rule.
Please reread what I am saying, you are not arguing my point. In both statements I mentioned multiclassing - GIVING proficiency. When you have proficiency there is no restriction to what they can wear. In earlier edition's you still had a limitation even if you multiclass. If you go forge cleric then druid - you have proficiency in metal/heavy armor. If you go fighter then wizard you can wear heavy armor - no limitation. In first edition if you were a fighter/mage you still had arcane failure if you wore armor. same with second I believe third as well I can not remember. I don't know about 4th. The point I am making is the Druid CAN wear metal/heavy armor, if the story and character make sense. I would even say they could if the took the feat and had a story to it as well they can. All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule. .
Yeah it is kind of a weirdly arbitrary rule. Metal = bad, but also here have a scimitar in your starting equipment. It's ok because cats and stuff have claws? Ok but like an armadillo has armor so wouldn't a breastplate fall under the same justification?
"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands. There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
You would be incorrect.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
This is straight from the PHB under the main heading of Armor and Shields. There is in fact a form of Arcane failure. Its just that instead of being a chance it is now guaranteed.
So the concept is still there entirely and it's actually more harsh than I was thinking it was as I was only remembering the disadvantage part of the rule.
Please reread what I am saying, you are not arguing my point. In both statements I mentioned multiclassing - GIVING proficiency. When you have proficiency there is no restriction to what they can wear. In earlier edition's you still had a limitation even if you multiclass. If you go forge cleric then druid - you have proficiency in metal/heavy armor. If you go fighter then wizard you can wear heavy armor - no limitation. In first edition if you were a fighter/mage you still had arcane failure if you wore armor. same with second I believe third as well I can not remember. I don't know about 4th. The point I am making is the Druid CAN wear metal/heavy armor, if the story and character make sense. I would even say they could if the took the feat and had a story to it as well they can. All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule. .
No. That's what your hiding behind as you made a claim about how things like Wizards used to work. What I addressed is how you were incorrect about how they work. you then told me that those things didnt' exist anymore and i showed that they did but in a slightly different capacity.
The whole issue of multiclassing was a different issue that I never addressed and doesn't actually matter when I'm correcting false information that you were spreading about older editions and how they functioned mechanically. Running to a different argument and point does not change what I have said or how it actually worked and does work now.
"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands. There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
You would be incorrect.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
This is straight from the PHB under the main heading of Armor and Shields. There is in fact a form of Arcane failure. Its just that instead of being a chance it is now guaranteed.
So the concept is still there entirely and it's actually more harsh than I was thinking it was as I was only remembering the disadvantage part of the rule.
Please reread what I am saying, you are not arguing my point. In both statements I mentioned multiclassing - GIVING proficiency. When you have proficiency there is no restriction to what they can wear. In earlier edition's you still had a limitation even if you multiclass. If you go forge cleric then druid - you have proficiency in metal/heavy armor. If you go fighter then wizard you can wear heavy armor - no limitation. In first edition if you were a fighter/mage you still had arcane failure if you wore armor. same with second I believe third as well I can not remember. I don't know about 4th. The point I am making is the Druid CAN wear metal/heavy armor, if the story and character make sense. I would even say they could if the took the feat and had a story to it as well they can. All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule. .
No. That's what your hiding behind as you made a claim about how things like Wizards used to work. What I addressed is how you were incorrect about how they work. you then told me that those things didnt' exist anymore and i showed that they did but in a slightly different capacity.
The whole issue of multiclassing was a different issue that I never addressed and doesn't actually matter when I'm correcting false information that you were spreading about older editions and how they functioned mechanically. Running to a different argument and point does not change what I have said or how it actually worked and does work now.
You corrected that it was not metal armor but all armor and I acknowledged that. But in regards to mages/wizards wearing armor in 5th is still better. WHEN you multiclass in older editions you still had restrictions in regards to the armor being worn. In 5th you do not. I still say it is better. You were referring to single class when I was not talking single class. That is a fact. Even if you multiclass even in 3.5 arcane failure would still be ranging from 5% with leather to 90% with half plate and a tower shield, multiclass does not stop that.
If you mean the exact wording was off ... whatever, the spirit of what I am saying is not off. You can continue to put out other references but that will not change that when you multiclass in 5th you loose the restrictions from armor. AND the final point is this thread is about druids in metal armor, and I still stand behind the argument of " All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule."
So would this same "won't wear metal" bar a Warforged from being a druid?
I guess I don't understand how a tannery is any less industrialized than a smith either. If your argument is that you can tan your own hides in nature, then you could also argue that you could forge metal weapons/armor in nature as well. You could even flavor it in a really cool way: "I smelted this ore in a giant clam shell over the magma flows from a volcano! And I hammered it into shape with the tail of an anklyosaurus!"
So would this same "won't wear metal" bar a Warforged from being a druid?
I guess I don't understand how a tannery is any less industrialized than a smith either. If your argument is that you can tan your own hides in nature, then you could also argue that you could forge metal weapons/armor in nature as well. You could even flavor it in a really cool way: "I smelted this ore in a giant clam shell over the magma flows from a volcano! And I hammered it into shape with the tail of an anklyosaurus!"
Exactly! I really don't see how metal armor is considered unnatural in comparison to leather. Especially if the druid uses their own heat metal spell to forge their armor.
I keep seeing people mention RAW this and RAW that. The rules don't say that druids can't wear armor, it says they won't. There is a HUGE difference there, especially considering this is based on lore created by the writers of the game. Jeremy Crawford has even gone on to say that it was a lore based design choice. All of this means there is no actual rule barring druids from wearing metal armor.
My thoughts- do what you and your DM are cool with. Personally, I think this should be taken out of the game because it is logically flawed. I let my players wear metal armor without any sort of in depth back story element. I'd rather them focus on having a fun character with the backstory they want than force them to come up with some random reason why they are ok with wearing metal. "Oh, your Druidic Order is ok with it because it's actually just as natural as leather crafting? Ok, I'll make a note of that for world building."
So would this same "won't wear metal" bar a Warforged from being a druid?
I guess I don't understand how a tannery is any less industrialized than a smith either. If your argument is that you can tan your own hides in nature, then you could also argue that you could forge metal weapons/armor in nature as well. You could even flavor it in a really cool way: "I smelted this ore in a giant clam shell over the magma flows from a volcano! And I hammered it into shape with the tail of an anklyosaurus!"
Exactly! I really don't see how metal armor is considered unnatural in comparison to leather. Especially if the druid uses their own heat metal spell to forge their armor.
I keep seeing people mention RAW this and RAW that. The rules don't say that druids can't wear armor, it says they won't. There is a HUGE difference there, especially considering this is based on lore created by the writers of the game. Jeremy Crawford has even gone on to say that it was a lore based design choice. All of this means there is no actual rule barring druids from wearing metal armor.
My thoughts- do what you and your DM are cool with. Personally, I think this should be taken out of the game because it is logically flawed. I let my players wear metal armor without any sort of in depth back story element. I'd rather them focus on having a fun character with the backstory they want than force them to come up with some random reason why they are ok with wearing metal. "Oh, your Druidic Order is ok with it because it's actually just as natural as leather crafting? Ok, I'll make a note of that for world building."
Heat Metal could never be used to forge armor. It doesn't get hot enough. It only gets hot enough to burn. Not to actually melt the materials.
And no. Metal working is not the same as leather crafting. Leather Crafting is a result of using all parts of an animal that they hunted for other reasons. Forging Metal Items means going out of their way to dig certain types of ore out of the ground for no other reason than twisting it into various man-made shapes and using it. That is a very different mentality from "i don't want to waste a part so I will use these natural chemicals to clean and cure a hide and a bit of sewing to bind them together."
But people are going to ignore that because they only stop at "man-made" and don't think about everything it takes to make them or why they might have the materials in the first place.
Heat Metal is incredibly vague about how hot it gets, so thinking outside the tiny little box of "what does it do in combat" could lead to many possibilities.
And that is YOUR opinion about how a medieval culture might view metal crafting vs leather crafting. Who says that they waste the rest of the rock once they've extracted the ore? Who says the whole animal is used when you leather craft? It's all based on the story that's told at the table.
My point is that each Druid Circle is different and can have different taboos. The one described in the book is one possibility. And at the end of the day, it isn't even rule, so again, you can do what you want. If it was a rule, it would say "can't" or it would give a consequence.
It is a rule in the sense that it is a limitation on the armor your character will wear, whether you choose to abide it or not. The whole “won’t doesn’t mean can’t” argument is disingenuous at best. Whether a Druid “won’t” or “can’t” wear metal, there are not druids following that text and wearing metal. The whole “won’t or can’t” argument I think comes from seeing too much bad dialog in movies. “I can’t do that for you.” “Can’t or won’t?” Who gives a flip? It still ain’t gonna happen.
As far as I’m concerned the “there isn’t a consequence for ignoring it” argument is abhorrent to the structure of the game in general. There’s no consequence for taking 8 actions on your turn.
There's no written consequences for taking 8 actions because the rules explicitly say you CAN'T. There are unwritten consequences, specifically that you would break the game.
It isn't a disingenuous argument to distinguish between can't and won't because the entire ruleset is based on precise language. Can't and won't have meaning, and they are not the same.
Again, I'll refer you to the Jeremy Crawford quote near the beginning of this entire discussion. It would not break anything in the game for a Druid to wear metal, it would merely break the story that they had in mind when designing the game. It would severely break the game if you were to take 8 actions in a turn. To even compare the two is, quite frankly, asinine.
Wow. Ok, dismissive much. I'm not saying that I'm not ignoring the lore. Do you follow every single line in the book? I doubt it. I'm explaining why I disregard this particular line and why I advocate for it being taken out of the rulebook.
My arguments do carry meaning regardless of if agree with them or not.
Your arguments don't carry meaning. There is nothing that you said that couldn't be said for any other rule. You don't need to justify not following a rule. When you make weak justifications like "there doesn't need to be a consequence for this, but there does for that because I said so" then you just look foolish.
To be clear, I am not saying you shouldn't ignore it if you want to. I am saying that you don't need to justify ignoring it with half-baked arguments.
It's not half baked at all, nor is it weak. You clearly didn't read or simply don't understand. You are trying to compare a real rule with real game impact with a lore statement. The designer of the freaking game said it wasn't a rule. None of my arguments can be applied to actual rules because my argument centers on the fact that this isn't a rule.
It's not my fault that you don't understand the difference between a mechanical rule and what amounts to flavor text.
And for the record, you haven't actually defended your position that it is a rule short of saying "can't and won't are the same," and then trying to compare a Druid wearing metal to taking 8 actions in a turn. Then the best you can muster is "your argument means nothing." It would seem that your argument is half baked, and I'm just going to stop talking to you if that's the best you can come up with.
My argument is part of the choice that makes a character a druid is choosing to abide by its religious rules, including not wearing metal armor. What do I have to defend? It is in plain text in the book, and re-written in SAC. Choosing to not be a druid makes you not a druid.
Neither “can’t” nor “will not” means “will,” so even if they are different, what difference in their meaning makes it ok for you to do one but not the other? Why is it ok to not have a consequence for ignoring a sentence that uses one but not the other? Do rules need consequences for breaking them?
No one in this thread who used “can’t and won’t are different’ as an argument has said what about their difference makes one “a rule” and the other “lore.” The closest that anyone has come is to say that it “will not” is a choice. Maybe, but as SAC says, that choice is part of being a druid. I.e. you chose to abide that rule when you chose to become a druid.
Medium armor is medium armor. Druids can wear medium armor, but that medium armor will not be made of metal. They have their reasons, and that's fine. If you want to play a druid, abide by this. But this does not mean a druid cannot acquire armor made from exotic materials. In Storm King's Thunder, there are stone breastplates (worth 250 gp) that druids could wear. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom, there's a suit of Half Plate of Poison Resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Heck, Hoard of the Dragon Queen has a suit of White Dragon Scale Mail on an NPC the party could potentially fight, kill, and loot.
And while we don't know how hot Heat Metal can get, it's not hot enough to melt iron or forge steel. The iron needs to be heated to 1,700 degrees Celcius (3,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Lava, which does anywhere from 10d10 to 18d10 fire damage in the DMG, depending on whether you're wading or fully submerged, only gets to about 1,250 degrees Celcius. And Heat Metal just can't get anywhere near that high. The best it can manage is 9d8 fire damage, and that's with a 9th-level spell slot when you could be warping reality, instead.
"They are not allowed to wear armor (which interferes with their magical skills)" ok so it was not metal it was armor period. but the point stands, There was a chance of arcane failure while wearing armor in earlier editions which is not there anymore. The point still stands.
There is no chance of spell failure now. the concept has changed. The class rules have changes. If you multiclass it can happen! Which is what I was saying in the example, which also worked with the character story.
You would be incorrect.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
This is straight from the PHB under the main heading of Armor and Shields. There is in fact a form of Arcane failure. Its just that instead of being a chance it is now guaranteed.
So the concept is still there entirely and it's actually more harsh than I was thinking it was as I was only remembering the disadvantage part of the rule.
Please reread what I am saying, you are not arguing my point. In both statements I mentioned multiclassing - GIVING proficiency. When you have proficiency there is no restriction to what they can wear. In earlier edition's you still had a limitation even if you multiclass. If you go forge cleric then druid - you have proficiency in metal/heavy armor. If you go fighter then wizard you can wear heavy armor - no limitation. In first edition if you were a fighter/mage you still had arcane failure if you wore armor. same with second I believe third as well I can not remember. I don't know about 4th.
The point I am making is the Druid CAN wear metal/heavy armor, if the story and character make sense. I would even say they could if the took the feat and had a story to it as well they can. All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule. .
Yeah it is kind of a weirdly arbitrary rule. Metal = bad, but also here have a scimitar in your starting equipment. It's ok because cats and stuff have claws? Ok but like an armadillo has armor so wouldn't a breastplate fall under the same justification?
No. That's what your hiding behind as you made a claim about how things like Wizards used to work. What I addressed is how you were incorrect about how they work. you then told me that those things didnt' exist anymore and i showed that they did but in a slightly different capacity.
The whole issue of multiclassing was a different issue that I never addressed and doesn't actually matter when I'm correcting false information that you were spreading about older editions and how they functioned mechanically. Running to a different argument and point does not change what I have said or how it actually worked and does work now.
You corrected that it was not metal armor but all armor and I acknowledged that. But in regards to mages/wizards wearing armor in 5th is still better. WHEN you multiclass in older editions you still had restrictions in regards to the armor being worn. In 5th you do not. I still say it is better. You were referring to single class when I was not talking single class. That is a fact. Even if you multiclass even in 3.5 arcane failure would still be ranging from 5% with leather to 90% with half plate and a tower shield, multiclass does not stop that.
If you mean the exact wording was off ... whatever, the spirit of what I am saying is not off. You can continue to put out other references but that will not change that when you multiclass in 5th you loose the restrictions from armor. AND the final point is this thread is about druids in metal armor, and I still stand behind the argument of " All it says is the class won't, not that the character can't. Which means it is a decision. Which also means there will be exceptions to the rule."
So would this same "won't wear metal" bar a Warforged from being a druid?
I guess I don't understand how a tannery is any less industrialized than a smith either. If your argument is that you can tan your own hides in nature, then you could also argue that you could forge metal weapons/armor in nature as well. You could even flavor it in a really cool way: "I smelted this ore in a giant clam shell over the magma flows from a volcano! And I hammered it into shape with the tail of an anklyosaurus!"
Exactly! I really don't see how metal armor is considered unnatural in comparison to leather. Especially if the druid uses their own heat metal spell to forge their armor.
I keep seeing people mention RAW this and RAW that. The rules don't say that druids can't wear armor, it says they won't. There is a HUGE difference there, especially considering this is based on lore created by the writers of the game. Jeremy Crawford has even gone on to say that it was a lore based design choice. All of this means there is no actual rule barring druids from wearing metal armor.
My thoughts- do what you and your DM are cool with. Personally, I think this should be taken out of the game because it is logically flawed. I let my players wear metal armor without any sort of in depth back story element. I'd rather them focus on having a fun character with the backstory they want than force them to come up with some random reason why they are ok with wearing metal. "Oh, your Druidic Order is ok with it because it's actually just as natural as leather crafting? Ok, I'll make a note of that for world building."
Heat Metal could never be used to forge armor. It doesn't get hot enough. It only gets hot enough to burn. Not to actually melt the materials.
And no. Metal working is not the same as leather crafting. Leather Crafting is a result of using all parts of an animal that they hunted for other reasons. Forging Metal Items means going out of their way to dig certain types of ore out of the ground for no other reason than twisting it into various man-made shapes and using it. That is a very different mentality from "i don't want to waste a part so I will use these natural chemicals to clean and cure a hide and a bit of sewing to bind them together."
But people are going to ignore that because they only stop at "man-made" and don't think about everything it takes to make them or why they might have the materials in the first place.
Heat Metal is incredibly vague about how hot it gets, so thinking outside the tiny little box of "what does it do in combat" could lead to many possibilities.
And that is YOUR opinion about how a medieval culture might view metal crafting vs leather crafting. Who says that they waste the rest of the rock once they've extracted the ore? Who says the whole animal is used when you leather craft? It's all based on the story that's told at the table.
My point is that each Druid Circle is different and can have different taboos. The one described in the book is one possibility. And at the end of the day, it isn't even rule, so again, you can do what you want. If it was a rule, it would say "can't" or it would give a consequence.
It is a rule in the sense that it is a limitation on the armor your character will wear, whether you choose to abide it or not. The whole “won’t doesn’t mean can’t” argument is disingenuous at best. Whether a Druid “won’t” or “can’t” wear metal, there are not druids following that text and wearing metal. The whole “won’t or can’t” argument I think comes from seeing too much bad dialog in movies. “I can’t do that for you.” “Can’t or won’t?” Who gives a flip? It still ain’t gonna happen.
As far as I’m concerned the “there isn’t a consequence for ignoring it” argument is abhorrent to the structure of the game in general. There’s no consequence for taking 8 actions on your turn.
There's no written consequences for taking 8 actions because the rules explicitly say you CAN'T. There are unwritten consequences, specifically that you would break the game.
It isn't a disingenuous argument to distinguish between can't and won't because the entire ruleset is based on precise language. Can't and won't have meaning, and they are not the same.
Again, I'll refer you to the Jeremy Crawford quote near the beginning of this entire discussion. It would not break anything in the game for a Druid to wear metal, it would merely break the story that they had in mind when designing the game. It would severely break the game if you were to take 8 actions in a turn. To even compare the two is, quite frankly, asinine.
Your arguments carry no meaning. If you want to ignore it, go ahead. Just don't pretend that isn't what you're doing.
Just like any other text in the rulebook.
Wow. Ok, dismissive much. I'm not saying that I'm not ignoring the lore. Do you follow every single line in the book? I doubt it. I'm explaining why I disregard this particular line and why I advocate for it being taken out of the rulebook.
My arguments do carry meaning regardless of if agree with them or not.
Your arguments don't carry meaning. There is nothing that you said that couldn't be said for any other rule. You don't need to justify not following a rule. When you make weak justifications like "there doesn't need to be a consequence for this, but there does for that because I said so" then you just look foolish.
To be clear, I am not saying you shouldn't ignore it if you want to. I am saying that you don't need to justify ignoring it with half-baked arguments.
It's not half baked at all, nor is it weak. You clearly didn't read or simply don't understand. You are trying to compare a real rule with real game impact with a lore statement. The designer of the freaking game said it wasn't a rule. None of my arguments can be applied to actual rules because my argument centers on the fact that this isn't a rule.
It's not my fault that you don't understand the difference between a mechanical rule and what amounts to flavor text.
And for the record, you haven't actually defended your position that it is a rule short of saying "can't and won't are the same," and then trying to compare a Druid wearing metal to taking 8 actions in a turn. Then the best you can muster is "your argument means nothing." It would seem that your argument is half baked, and I'm just going to stop talking to you if that's the best you can come up with.
My argument is part of the choice that makes a character a druid is choosing to abide by its religious rules, including not wearing metal armor. What do I have to defend? It is in plain text in the book, and re-written in SAC. Choosing to not be a druid makes you not a druid.
Neither “can’t” nor “will not” means “will,” so even if they are different, what difference in their meaning makes it ok for you to do one but not the other? Why is it ok to not have a consequence for ignoring a sentence that uses one but not the other? Do rules need consequences for breaking them?
No one in this thread who used “can’t and won’t are different’ as an argument has said what about their difference makes one “a rule” and the other “lore.” The closest that anyone has come is to say that it “will not” is a choice. Maybe, but as SAC says, that choice is part of being a druid. I.e. you chose to abide that rule when you chose to become a druid.
Medium armor is medium armor. Druids can wear medium armor, but that medium armor will not be made of metal. They have their reasons, and that's fine. If you want to play a druid, abide by this. But this does not mean a druid cannot acquire armor made from exotic materials. In Storm King's Thunder, there are stone breastplates (worth 250 gp) that druids could wear. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom, there's a suit of Half Plate of Poison Resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Heck, Hoard of the Dragon Queen has a suit of White Dragon Scale Mail on an NPC the party could potentially fight, kill, and loot.
And while we don't know how hot Heat Metal can get, it's not hot enough to melt iron or forge steel. The iron needs to be heated to 1,700 degrees Celcius (3,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Lava, which does anywhere from 10d10 to 18d10 fire damage in the DMG, depending on whether you're wading or fully submerged, only gets to about 1,250 degrees Celcius. And Heat Metal just can't get anywhere near that high. The best it can manage is 9d8 fire damage, and that's with a 9th-level spell slot when you could be warping reality, instead.
It's a goofy, ancient rule that exists for legacy reasons (see: scimitar proficiency) and doesn't really do much other than limit roleplay options.
Pretty meh overall.
I agree with Jounichi.