Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
It often does yes, but most people ignore that part because in earlier edition it was described that druids did not bother with so little metal. Then in a later edition 1 circle of druids did not bother with metal at all, so all metal was fine, but in this edition people think 1 of those apply and the other does not.
My opinion on this matter is either you play the characters with the flavor restrictions in place for all classes, so paladins must have God's, must be lawful. Wizard can have no iron on them at all because it drains magic (in ad&d), barbarians can't read and so forth. Or people accept that flavor change for each setting, I would never force a conquest paladin to be lawful good. And I could see no problem in a druid who choose to rebel against his circle or if their circle accepter metal, maybe because they are dwarves or are followers of melil.
To hard rule "all druids in all the planes and settings have this view on this specific topic" are a very weird take for me, it should be a world building question first and foremost.
We wouldn't question a Fighter making that CHOICE. Because nothing would prevent a Fighter from putting on the next set of chain mail or plate mail that he came across. He could even change it up day by day. If you had a level 20 fighter wearing leather armor, I bet most people would point out that it is sub-optimal and at level 20 you should have plenty of gold to buy better armor.
What's at issue is that the game mechanics give you proficiency in armor, and then there's a line saying "Oh, but you can't actually ever use it."
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
An important distinction here. What's at issue here is a game mechanic that gives you proficiency in medium armor, but restricts you only using non-metalic medium armor. That's very different from not being allowed to wear medium armor at all.
So what is the real problem here? If instead of saying "will not" they said, "if you wear metal armor you will explode and then will destroy the multiverse by disrupting the time space continuum" would that make it better?
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
We wouldn't question a Fighter making that CHOICE. Because nothing would prevent a Fighter from putting on the next set of chain mail or plate mail that he came across. He could even change it up day by day. If you had a level 20 fighter wearing leather armor, I bet most people would point out that it is sub-optimal and at level 20 you should have plenty of gold to buy better armor.
What's at issue is that the game mechanics give you proficiency in armor, and then there's a line saying "Oh, but you can't actually ever use it."
I'm only going to say this once: stop misrepresenting the truth.
We both know druids can still wear medium armor. Setting aside the availability of hide, they can always get magical and mundane armors which aren't made of metal. It doesn't matter if it's scale mail made from dragon or serpent scales, a breastplate made from stone, or half plate made from petrified mushrooms. That option has always been there. This isn't some big secret, they've all been mentioned numerous times, and your refusal to acknowledge this truth is blatantly dishonest.
In order for our choices to matter, there need to be consequences. Not every fighter is going to want to wear plate. A lot just don't have the Strength to move effectively in it, they need Strength 15, and that's okay. That fighter can start with leather and will probably upgrade to studded leather before too long. But they might not; it depends on the module and what the DM might add or change. I wouldn't reasonably expect more than glamoured studded leather, but maybe that's just me. Rules as written, playing a druid means facing the consequence of not wearing metal armor. And, like with nonmetal medium armor, that's not some big surprise. The player knew it before they even started rolling dice. If they complain, the problem isn't with the class or how it's written.
It's with them.
Here's another example of choice and consequence. Rules as written, a dark elf (drow) or tiefling needs material components to cast some of their racial spells; specifically faerie fire (exclusive to the drow) and darkness. Their respective features do not associate the aforementioned spells with a specific class' list, so they can't use a class' spellcasting focus. For example, a wand won't work with them. They need a component pouch or something else, like a ruby of the war mage, to serve as a universal spellcasting focus. This is a direct consequence of playing one of these races, and it's why sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all have the option of starting with a component pouch.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were afraid of consequences.
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
Yeah, except every other restriction has a, you know, restriction. IF you wear armor with which you are not proficient, you cannot cast spells.
Druids are just having a roleplaying choice made for them. Where if they break that roleplaying choice, nothing happens.
Some restrictions are soft, meaning you can do them but with a penalty. Others are hard restrictions, things you just simply cannot do.
Druids not being able to wear metal is just another hard restriction flavored as a role playing choice. If you don't like the flavor, change the flavor. Say... "The reason my Druid does not wear metal is because it will destroy the multiverse if he does." Or maybe less silly, "The properties of metal interfere with nature magic." Whatever suits you. At the end of the day it's just a game mechanic. A restriction. How you fit that mechanic into your character concept is up to you. If you prefer to flavor the mechanic in a manner that does not involve your character's choice, cool.
The literal rule text is "Proficiences: Armor:Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" My argument is that parenthetical should either read something like "druids are not proficient in metal armor or shields", or (preferably, IMO) that parenthetical should be moved to where the rest of the not-rules are.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material? I get what you're doing there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least bandied about during brainstorming sessions or earlier versions of the rules, but I imagine that adding another layer of "complexity" to what proficiencies are came into play with that.
This discussion only ever happens because there is non-rule text "forcibly jammed" into a line of rule text, otherwise nobody would choose to discuss it. That's the whole point.
That is exactly the problem I'm talking about, it belongs in the opening description, not under Proficiencies where it neither describes a proficiency (metal armor proficiency is not a thing) nor affects proficiencies (ignoring it has no mechanical effect). If it were in the right place people wouldn't ask this question, yet druids would mostly still not wear metal armor. Sounds like RAI if the goal is not wearing metal armor.
I mean, they're pretty adamant that this is aversion to wearing metal armor and shields—despite the fact that they can wield a metal sickle—is an inherent, core part of the class definition, even if there isn't any actual underlying mechanical restriction in play. Let's be real—there are gonna be tons of players who don't ever read any of that, or at the very least just skim it without paying it much mind. They likely thought, what would we need to include in the parts clearly designated as "rules you need to know to play this class" and decided that was something to include, and they put it in the most logical place they could given the format of the class description.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material?
There is no rule saying you can't have proficiency in a type of material, and it's perfectly mechanically consistent, so... there is such a thing the moment someone introduces one.
This topic really is a zombie. I'm curious why it's so problematic. The rules say that druids simply don't choose to wear metal armor. If you don't want to follow that, you work it out with your DM, like really any other rule that you don't want to follow. Or work out armor made out of other materials that don't interfere. It's really pretty simple, no? I mean, it's highly unlikely that Wizards is going to change that even in the new update in a couple of years... is this really that much of a hill to die on? LOL
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material?
There is no rule saying you can't have proficiency in a type of material, and it's perfectly mechanically consistent, so... there is such a thing the moment someone introduces one.
Well, there's such a thing the moment Jeremy Crawford decides there is. LOL
I'm more interested in what's actually in the rules, rather than what the rules don't say we can't have. :)
I'm more interested in what's actually in the rules, rather than what the rules don't say we can't have. :)
You asked if there's proficiency in a type of material. The answer is that there's proficiency in anything a writer says there's proficiency in; there are no rules on 'allowable' proficiencies.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
We wouldn't question a Fighter making that CHOICE. Because nothing would prevent a Fighter from putting on the next set of chain mail or plate mail that he came across. He could even change it up day by day. If you had a level 20 fighter wearing leather armor, I bet most people would point out that it is sub-optimal and at level 20 you should have plenty of gold to buy better armor.
What's at issue is that the game mechanics give you proficiency in armor, and then there's a line saying "Oh, but you can't actually ever use it."
I'm only going to say this once: stop misrepresenting the truth.
We both know druids can still wear medium armor. Setting aside the availability of hide, they can always get magical and mundane armors which aren't made of metal. It doesn't matter if it's scale mail made from dragon or serpent scales, a breastplate made from stone, or half plate made from petrified mushrooms. That option has always been there. This isn't some big secret, they've all been mentioned numerous times, and your refusal to acknowledge this truth is blatantly dishonest.
In order for our choices to matter, there need to be consequences. Not every fighter is going to want to wear plate. A lot just don't have the Strength to move effectively in it, they need Strength 15, and that's okay. That fighter can start with leather and will probably upgrade to studded leather before too long. But they might not; it depends on the module and what the DM might add or change. I wouldn't reasonably expect more than glamoured studded leather, but maybe that's just me. Rules as written, playing a druid means facing the consequence of not wearing metal armor. And, like with nonmetal medium armor, that's not some big surprise. The player knew it before they even started rolling dice. If they complain, the problem isn't with the class or how it's written.
It's with them.
Here's another example of choice and consequence. Rules as written, a dark elf (drow) or tiefling needs material components to cast some of their racial spells; specifically faerie fire (exclusive to the drow) and darkness. Their respective features do not associate the aforementioned spells with a specific class' list, so they can't use a class' spellcasting focus. For example, a wand won't work with them. They need a component pouch or something else, like a ruby of the war mage, to serve as a universal spellcasting focus. This is a direct consequence of playing one of these races, and it's why sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all have the option of starting with a component pouch.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were afraid of consequences.
But there ARE NO CONSEQUENCES! Therein lies the problem. It is made out to be a roleplaying choice that you don't get to choose. It's like Fighters getting proficiency in all martial weapons, but the rules say they won't use weapons that deal bludgeoning damage. There is no rhyme or reason or consistency on the no metal armor thing.
All it does is lock the Druid out of using common loot that parties can reasonably come across and lock them out of adamantine or mithril armors.
We've been over this. The roleplaying choice has already been made by the player. They wouldn't be playing a druid otherwise.
And now I get to report you for deliberately lying and spreading misinformation. This has been going on in this thread for months. Have you no shame?
We've been over this. The roleplaying choice has already been made by the player. They wouldn't be playing a druid otherwise.
And now I get to report you for deliberately lying and spreading misinformation. This has been going on in this thread for months. Have you no shame?
So a game full of imagination, of playing whatever, doing whatever, you want - basically at DM's discretion, and yours as a players.... that all goes away because someone, at some point, decided druids - EVERY SINGLE DRUID ever to come and ever was or ever will be, does not like Metal. They prefer wearing the skins of animals they love and respect.....
hahah well I am glad to know I will never have to play in your campaigns, because that sort of narrow minded rules are what takes enjoyment out of D&D and games I have left. Mind you, not just left because of a stupid 'no metal' rule, but a 'no uniqueness' rule. I had a DM slam me because I was a druid that wanted to be an Archeologist... Why would a druid ever want to leave nature? Oh IDK because EVERYONE is different.
Tasha's rules fixed a lot of broken - saying only certain races were best suited for certain classes. Because heaven forbid that a race that usually doesn't provide a boost to wisdom, have born unto them someone who is very wise - thereby granting them bonus to Wisdom instead of Dex...
Sure if it must 'fit' the narrative - a breastplate is a turtle shell - because - surely a druid would love to kill a giant turtle to use its shell as armor.... because that doesn't break any taboos of hurting poor innocent animals instead of wearing - oh idk.. metal....
spreading lies, sharing opinions and thoughts... whatever the case may be.... the lucky thing is everyone, including me, our opinions doesn't matter to another person, because, thank the D&D creatures - all this is decided by the DM and agreed upon by the player(s) - or a player doesn't have to play in that game.
You asked if there's proficiency in a type of material.
I asked if proficiency with a particular type of material exists. In other words, is there actually a rule in one of the official books that delineates that you can have a proficiency with armor/weapons/tools made of a particular material.
The answer is that there's proficiency in anything a writer says there's proficiency in
That's a little closer to the truth than your earlier assessment that such a proficiency exists when "someone" introduces one. I wasn't certain whether you were coming from the perspective of "anyone can decide that there's a metal proficiency" or that specifically the official Wizards of the Coast could conceivably introduce that to the rules at some point in the future.
Even then, I'm not certain how helpful an answer that ends up being. You could really say that about any rule at all. Something is a rule until Jeremy et al decide that it's either no longer a rule, that it's a rule that wasn't written so clearly so there's a new version that shows their actual intent, or that there's an exception case that overrides the general rule.
Many of the rules in the books don't delineate the totality of what's allowed. If we're having a discussion about RAW, which is almost always the perspective that I come from in these discussions, then we can't really look at what the rules don't say since RAW is only what the rules do say. Everything else is DM fiat, which is more of what I was getting at in my previous post.
While it's true there's no explicit rule that states "you can only have proficiencies in these things", we certainly can look at what is said repeatedly, over and over again, in the rules around what proficiencies actually exist in the game as it stands right now per RAW.
We know that one can be proficient in:
a skill
a tool (which includes things like gaming sets, musical instruments, etc.)
a saving throw
a specific weapon
a weapon category (simple/martial although interestingly enough no melee/ranged proficiency)
all weapons
a specific type of armor
a specific category of armor
all armor
shields (separate from armor proficiency)
Also of note is that the Player's Handbook's section on Armor and Shields in Chapter 5 indicates that you can have proficiency with specific types of armor. While exactly what the word "type" means, we can look to how armor is actually organized in the Armor table to see what possibilities exist RAW.
hahah well I am glad to know I will never have to play in your campaigns, because that sort of narrow minded rules are what takes enjoyment out of D&D and games I have left.
That's a bit unfair considering that he said multiple times through this topic that you could always talk to your DM if you feel strongly that your druid would wear metal armor.
Tasha's rules fixed a lot of broken - saying only certain races were best suited for certain classes. Because heaven forbid that a race that usually doesn't provide a boost to wisdom, have born unto them someone who is very wise - thereby granting them bonus to Wisdom instead of Dex...
Maybe it's just me, but whether an entire race of people should be mechanically described as inherently stronger, smarter, more aware, etc. seems like a bigger issue to address than whether you taking this job means you're not gonna wear metal stuff. :)
I wonder whether the notion of not wearing metal armor, which by default is going to mean the most powerful armors are out of the reach since not many players and DMs really think about custom bone/rock/whatever armor, factored into the design of the druid ultimately being a potential tank just through their class features. It's not easy to kill a moon druid (nigh impossible at 20th level) already without being able to wear half-plate (forgetting about taking a feat to gain access to full plate). LOL
all this is decided by the DM and agreed upon by the player(s) - or a player doesn't have to play in that game.
And that's really the answer to all the complaints, but then again this immortal topic will forever be argued to death, with people dying on their respective hills, because some won't be happy until Wizards removes the restriction, which I don't see ever happening.
There are also examples of being proficient (or double proficient) in very specific things, such as Artificer's Lore (Rock Gnome), which adds double proficiency to history checks related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices.
Actually, that is an example of being proficient in a type of material; 'alchemical objects' are a type of material.
That's a little closer to the truth than your earlier assessment that such a proficiency exists when "someone" introduces one. I wasn't certain whether you were coming from the perspective of "anyone can decide that there's a metal proficiency" or that specifically the official Wizards of the Coast could conceivably introduce that to the rules at some point in the future.
Anyone can introduce such a proficiency. Obviously it won't be an official proficiency unless Wizards does it.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
People keep saying studded leather but that has metal in it right?
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
It often does yes, but most people ignore that part because in earlier edition it was described that druids did not bother with so little metal. Then in a later edition 1 circle of druids did not bother with metal at all, so all metal was fine, but in this edition people think 1 of those apply and the other does not.
My opinion on this matter is either you play the characters with the flavor restrictions in place for all classes, so paladins must have God's, must be lawful. Wizard can have no iron on them at all because it drains magic (in ad&d), barbarians can't read and so forth. Or people accept that flavor change for each setting, I would never force a conquest paladin to be lawful good. And I could see no problem in a druid who choose to rebel against his circle or if their circle accepter metal, maybe because they are dwarves or are followers of melil.
To hard rule "all druids in all the planes and settings have this view on this specific topic" are a very weird take for me, it should be a world building question first and foremost.
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
An important distinction here. What's at issue here is a game mechanic that gives you proficiency in medium armor, but restricts you only using non-metalic medium armor. That's very different from not being allowed to wear medium armor at all.
So what is the real problem here? If instead of saying "will not" they said, "if you wear metal armor you will explode and then will destroy the multiverse by disrupting the time space continuum" would that make it better?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
I'm only going to say this once: stop misrepresenting the truth.
We both know druids can still wear medium armor. Setting aside the availability of hide, they can always get magical and mundane armors which aren't made of metal. It doesn't matter if it's scale mail made from dragon or serpent scales, a breastplate made from stone, or half plate made from petrified mushrooms. That option has always been there. This isn't some big secret, they've all been mentioned numerous times, and your refusal to acknowledge this truth is blatantly dishonest.
In order for our choices to matter, there need to be consequences. Not every fighter is going to want to wear plate. A lot just don't have the Strength to move effectively in it, they need Strength 15, and that's okay. That fighter can start with leather and will probably upgrade to studded leather before too long. But they might not; it depends on the module and what the DM might add or change. I wouldn't reasonably expect more than glamoured studded leather, but maybe that's just me. Rules as written, playing a druid means facing the consequence of not wearing metal armor. And, like with nonmetal medium armor, that's not some big surprise. The player knew it before they even started rolling dice. If they complain, the problem isn't with the class or how it's written.
It's with them.
Here's another example of choice and consequence. Rules as written, a dark elf (drow) or tiefling needs material components to cast some of their racial spells; specifically faerie fire (exclusive to the drow) and darkness. Their respective features do not associate the aforementioned spells with a specific class' list, so they can't use a class' spellcasting focus. For example, a wand won't work with them. They need a component pouch or something else, like a ruby of the war mage, to serve as a universal spellcasting focus. This is a direct consequence of playing one of these races, and it's why sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all have the option of starting with a component pouch.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were afraid of consequences.
Some restrictions are soft, meaning you can do them but with a penalty. Others are hard restrictions, things you just simply cannot do.
Druids not being able to wear metal is just another hard restriction flavored as a role playing choice. If you don't like the flavor, change the flavor. Say... "The reason my Druid does not wear metal is because it will destroy the multiverse if he does." Or maybe less silly, "The properties of metal interfere with nature magic." Whatever suits you. At the end of the day it's just a game mechanic. A restriction. How you fit that mechanic into your character concept is up to you. If you prefer to flavor the mechanic in a manner that does not involve your character's choice, cool.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material? I get what you're doing there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least bandied about during brainstorming sessions or earlier versions of the rules, but I imagine that adding another layer of "complexity" to what proficiencies are came into play with that.
I mean, they're pretty adamant that this is aversion to wearing metal armor and shields—despite the fact that they can wield a metal sickle—is an inherent, core part of the class definition, even if there isn't any actual underlying mechanical restriction in play. Let's be real—there are gonna be tons of players who don't ever read any of that, or at the very least just skim it without paying it much mind. They likely thought, what would we need to include in the parts clearly designated as "rules you need to know to play this class" and decided that was something to include, and they put it in the most logical place they could given the format of the class description.
There is no rule saying you can't have proficiency in a type of material, and it's perfectly mechanically consistent, so... there is such a thing the moment someone introduces one.
This topic really is a zombie. I'm curious why it's so problematic. The rules say that druids simply don't choose to wear metal armor. If you don't want to follow that, you work it out with your DM, like really any other rule that you don't want to follow. Or work out armor made out of other materials that don't interfere. It's really pretty simple, no? I mean, it's highly unlikely that Wizards is going to change that even in the new update in a couple of years... is this really that much of a hill to die on? LOL
Well, there's such a thing the moment Jeremy Crawford decides there is. LOL
I'm more interested in what's actually in the rules, rather than what the rules don't say we can't have. :)
You asked if there's proficiency in a type of material. The answer is that there's proficiency in anything a writer says there's proficiency in; there are no rules on 'allowable' proficiencies.
We've been over this. The roleplaying choice has already been made by the player. They wouldn't be playing a druid otherwise.
And now I get to report you for deliberately lying and spreading misinformation. This has been going on in this thread for months. Have you no shame?
So a game full of imagination, of playing whatever, doing whatever, you want - basically at DM's discretion, and yours as a players.... that all goes away because someone, at some point, decided druids - EVERY SINGLE DRUID ever to come and ever was or ever will be, does not like Metal. They prefer wearing the skins of animals they love and respect.....
hahah well I am glad to know I will never have to play in your campaigns, because that sort of narrow minded rules are what takes enjoyment out of D&D and games I have left. Mind you, not just left because of a stupid 'no metal' rule, but a 'no uniqueness' rule. I had a DM slam me because I was a druid that wanted to be an Archeologist... Why would a druid ever want to leave nature? Oh IDK because EVERYONE is different.
Tasha's rules fixed a lot of broken - saying only certain races were best suited for certain classes. Because heaven forbid that a race that usually doesn't provide a boost to wisdom, have born unto them someone who is very wise - thereby granting them bonus to Wisdom instead of Dex...
Sure if it must 'fit' the narrative - a breastplate is a turtle shell - because - surely a druid would love to kill a giant turtle to use its shell as armor.... because that doesn't break any taboos of hurting poor innocent animals instead of wearing - oh idk.. metal....
spreading lies, sharing opinions and thoughts... whatever the case may be.... the lucky thing is everyone, including me, our opinions doesn't matter to another person, because, thank the D&D creatures - all this is decided by the DM and agreed upon by the player(s) - or a player doesn't have to play in that game.
I asked if proficiency with a particular type of material exists. In other words, is there actually a rule in one of the official books that delineates that you can have a proficiency with armor/weapons/tools made of a particular material.
That's a little closer to the truth than your earlier assessment that such a proficiency exists when "someone" introduces one. I wasn't certain whether you were coming from the perspective of "anyone can decide that there's a metal proficiency" or that specifically the official Wizards of the Coast could conceivably introduce that to the rules at some point in the future.
Even then, I'm not certain how helpful an answer that ends up being. You could really say that about any rule at all. Something is a rule until Jeremy et al decide that it's either no longer a rule, that it's a rule that wasn't written so clearly so there's a new version that shows their actual intent, or that there's an exception case that overrides the general rule.
Many of the rules in the books don't delineate the totality of what's allowed. If we're having a discussion about RAW, which is almost always the perspective that I come from in these discussions, then we can't really look at what the rules don't say since RAW is only what the rules do say. Everything else is DM fiat, which is more of what I was getting at in my previous post.
While it's true there's no explicit rule that states "you can only have proficiencies in these things", we certainly can look at what is said repeatedly, over and over again, in the rules around what proficiencies actually exist in the game as it stands right now per RAW.
We know that one can be proficient in:
Also of note is that the Player's Handbook's section on Armor and Shields in Chapter 5 indicates that you can have proficiency with specific types of armor. While exactly what the word "type" means, we can look to how armor is actually organized in the Armor table to see what possibilities exist RAW.
That's a bit unfair considering that he said multiple times through this topic that you could always talk to your DM if you feel strongly that your druid would wear metal armor.
Maybe it's just me, but whether an entire race of people should be mechanically described as inherently stronger, smarter, more aware, etc. seems like a bigger issue to address than whether you taking this job means you're not gonna wear metal stuff. :)
I wonder whether the notion of not wearing metal armor, which by default is going to mean the most powerful armors are out of the reach since not many players and DMs really think about custom bone/rock/whatever armor, factored into the design of the druid ultimately being a potential tank just through their class features. It's not easy to kill a moon druid (nigh impossible at 20th level) already without being able to wear half-plate (forgetting about taking a feat to gain access to full plate). LOL
And that's really the answer to all the complaints, but then again this immortal topic will forever be argued to death, with people dying on their respective hills, because some won't be happy until Wizards removes the restriction, which I don't see ever happening.
There are also examples of being proficient (or double proficient) in very specific things, such as Artificer's Lore (Rock Gnome), which adds double proficiency to history checks related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices.
Actually, that is an example of being proficient in a type of material; 'alchemical objects' are a type of material.
Anyone can introduce such a proficiency. Obviously it won't be an official proficiency unless Wizards does it.