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.....
The entire game is built around restrictions and working within them. Druids and metal armor should not be a bridge too far for anyone. If it is, simply don't play a druid. Or, if you feel that strongly about it, talk to your DM about why your special snowflake would break that taboo.
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.
If that's intended to be a dig at me, you're missing the mark by a country mile. You never had to play with me before because that's how choice works. We're all allowed to decide who we play alongside. Just as we're all allowed to decide the kinds of characters we play. We can mix and match races/lineages, classes, and backgrounds in practically any combination. And if someone elects to play a druid, they're doing so knowing full well about the restriction so many of you are incensed over. I just don't get it. You say you want us all to have choices; just not this choice.
Sucks that DM slamming the druid archeologist concept, though. I think it's at least worth a discussion; something to fine-tune.
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...
Tasha's didn't actually fix as much as you, and a lot of others, think you did. The new options are just that: options. They're no more essential to the game than feats or multiclassing, and the DM is free to allow, disallow, or tweak to their heart's content. If anything, it's arguably made some far stronger characters. A mountain dwarf, with their medium armor proficiency and two +2 bonuses to their ability scores, now make for some fantastic sorcerers and wizards. Arguably better than anyone else. And, to be honest, I can't think of any races which were exclusively better for certain classes. But I'm also not obsessed with optimization because, by its very nature, optimization means removing options from the game.
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....
I don't think I understand your thought process. Are druids supposed to be pacifists that refuse to harm animals? Are they all vegan? They understand the natural cycles better than probably anyone else. They can choose to, sure, and it's a valid way to play one. Beast Boy from the Teen Titans animated series (and it's soft-reboot Teen Titans Go!) is vegan, but it isn't a requirement. You could play a druid like a murderous member of Peta; if everyone else at the table were okay with it. But that's not me.
For me, the druid is the herbivore and the carnivore: predator and prey. They are also the gentle breeze, the hurricane, and the blizzard. They exist at an intersection, and to deny their place and role in the grand order is to deny themself. A druid might not enjoy killing this hypothetical turtle, but that doesn't mean they won't do it if necessary. We all do things we don't want to do, but still need to. After all, the turtle is no more innocent than a violent ankheg. They're both animals; following their instincts and natures. It isn't their fault if they harm someone or something.
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.
Your dismissive attitude towards blatant dishonesty says far more about you than you might like. Not all opinions are created equal, and opinions rooted in falsehoods aren't worth a damn. You're all free to do what you want on your own, this much is true. But now I'm curious. If the opinions of others, especially those who disagree with you, don't matter to you, then why participate? What's your goal?
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.....
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
My gripe is that there IS NO hard mechanic. I would be perfectly fine if the rule stated that the wearing of metal armor caused the druid to be at disadvantage on any spells/saves or lose the ability to cast/shape change, or some other "if/then" actual mechanic but the absence of such, and then the mealy mouth response from TPTB relegating it to being just a "taboo" to wear metal armor, tells me that they (TPTB) don't care enough about this being a rule to even spend a couple of sentences in an errata to give it a consequence. We have changed SO MUCH of the basic rules throughout all of 5E that if this really was meant to be a rule, it seems that there has been more than enough opportunity to assign a consequence to it.
Which leads me to the conclusion that it is INDEED just flavor text and never meant to be a rule - one with a mechanical consequence or not.
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.....
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
Your thoughts?
I have said this before as well - I don't care of it is flavored as heavy woven materials - Breast Plate provides higher AC - why wouldn't someone adventuring want to be able to protect themselves?
If you want to say the breast plate AC is, instead tightly woven material - I am fine with that.
I just don't think anyone else should tell me I can't do something, when a mechanic of the game says - I am proficient in Medium Armor - don't tell me what kind of Medium armor I can wear. It isn't that the metal gives adverse conditions, no where does it say - a druid will not wear metal armor because if they do their magic is messed up, they will blow up, they will have disadvantage on attacks... etc etc.. it doesn't say that there are negative consequences for wearing metal.
If someone wears heavy armor and are not proficient or do not have the strength, it says their are consequences...
Let me play me - I'll let you play you - and everyone can stay out of everyone's business about what we do and don't wear :-)
My gripe is that there IS NO hard mechanic. I would be perfectly fine if the rule stated that the wearing of metal armor caused the druid to be at disadvantage on any spells/saves or lose the ability to cast/shape change, or some other "if/then" actual mechanic but the absence of such, and then the mealy mouth response from TPTB relegating it to being just a "taboo" to wear metal armor, tells me that they (TPTB) don't care enough about this being a rule to even spend a couple of sentences in an errata to give it a consequence. We have SO MUCH of the basic rules throughout all of 5E that if this really was meant to be a rule, it seems that there has been more than enough opportunity to assign a consequence to it.
Which leads me to the conclusion that it is INDEED just flavor text and never meant to be a rule - one with a mechanical consequence or not.
haha I did my reply to that other reply - without finish catching up - but yes - what you said!!
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.....
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
Your thoughts?
I have said this before as well - I don't care of it is flavored as heavy woven materials - Breast Plate provides higher AC - why wouldn't someone adventuring want to be able to protect themselves?
If you want to say the breast plate AC is, instead tightly woven material - I am fine with that.
I just don't think anyone else should tell me I can't do something, when a mechanic of the game says - I am proficient in Medium Armor - don't tell me what kind of Medium armor I can wear. It isn't that the metal gives adverse conditions, no where does it say - a druid will not wear metal armor because if they do their magic is messed up, they will blow up, they will have disadvantage on attacks... etc etc.. it doesn't say that there are negative consequences for wearing metal.
If someone wears heavy armor and are not proficient or do not have the strength, it says their are consequences...
Let me play me - I'll let you play you - and everyone can stay out of everyone's business about what we do and don't wear :-)
Yes they do. But that bypasses my first question. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? "That" meaning light armor until/if you acquire special medium armor. Your response to that will dictate my response to the rest of your post.
My gripe is that there IS NO hard mechanic. I would be perfectly fine if the rule stated that the wearing of metal armor caused the druid to be at disadvantage on any spells/saves or lose the ability to cast/shape change, or some other "if/then" actual mechanic but the absence of such, and then the mealy mouth response from TPTB relegating it to being just a "taboo" to wear metal armor, tells me that they (TPTB) don't care enough about this being a rule to even spend a couple of sentences in an errata to give it a consequence. We have SO MUCH of the basic rules throughout all of 5E that if this really was meant to be a rule, it seems that there has been more than enough opportunity to assign a consequence to it.
Which leads me to the conclusion that it is INDEED just flavor text and never meant to be a rule - one with a mechanical consequence or not.
haha I did my reply to that other reply - without finish catching up - but yes - what you said!!
What he said was just a deflection to avoid dealing with the point. If you play rules as written, you ain't putting on metal armor. That's what I mean by hard mechanic.
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.....
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
Your thoughts?
I have said this before as well - I don't care of it is flavored as heavy woven materials - Breast Plate provides higher AC - why wouldn't someone adventuring want to be able to protect themselves?
If you want to say the breast plate AC is, instead tightly woven material - I am fine with that.
I just don't think anyone else should tell me I can't do something, when a mechanic of the game says - I am proficient in Medium Armor - don't tell me what kind of Medium armor I can wear. It isn't that the metal gives adverse conditions, no where does it say - a druid will not wear metal armor because if they do their magic is messed up, they will blow up, they will have disadvantage on attacks... etc etc.. it doesn't say that there are negative consequences for wearing metal.
If someone wears heavy armor and are not proficient or do not have the strength, it says their are consequences...
Let me play me - I'll let you play you - and everyone can stay out of everyone's business about what we do and don't wear :-)
No one here can stop you from playing how you want, or from running the game you want.
Arguing with everyone here is pointless. You aren't here to convert people to your way of thinking. If you want us to stay out of your business, then stay out of everyone else's and stop replying.
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.....
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
Your thoughts?
I have said this before as well - I don't care of it is flavored as heavy woven materials - Breast Plate provides higher AC - why wouldn't someone adventuring want to be able to protect themselves?
If you want to say the breast plate AC is, instead tightly woven material - I am fine with that.
I just don't think anyone else should tell me I can't do something, when a mechanic of the game says - I am proficient in Medium Armor - don't tell me what kind of Medium armor I can wear. It isn't that the metal gives adverse conditions, no where does it say - a druid will not wear metal armor because if they do their magic is messed up, they will blow up, they will have disadvantage on attacks... etc etc.. it doesn't say that there are negative consequences for wearing metal.
If someone wears heavy armor and are not proficient or do not have the strength, it says their are consequences...
Let me play me - I'll let you play you - and everyone can stay out of everyone's business about what we do and don't wear :-)
No one here can stop you from playing how you want, or from running the game you want.
Arguing with everyone here is pointless. You aren't here to convert people to your way of thinking. If you want us to stay out of your business, then stay out of everyone else's and stop replying.
Not arguing lol and it is a topic I feel deeply about... so yeah whatever lol
What he said was just a deflection to avoid dealing with the point. If you play rules as written, you ain't putting on metal armor. That's what I mean by hard mechanic.
Ya, a deflection because the rules allow you to play an evil druid, one capable of mass murder, heck there are even chaotic evil druidic gods (Malar) who delight in random slaughter...
But we gotta drawn the line at taking the same metal from your mace and putting it on your chest - that is apparently bridge too far; something more class defining mass murder.
Murder entire cities but it would just break my heart to put on that metal breastplate. *roll eyes*
What he said was just a deflection to avoid dealing with the point. If you play rules as written, you ain't putting on metal armor. That's what I mean by hard mechanic.
Ya, a deflection because the rules allow you to play an evil druid, one capable of mass murder, heck there are even chaotic evil druidic gods (Malar) who delight in random slaughter...
But we gotta drawn the line at taking the same metal from your mace and putting it on your chest - that is apparently bridge too far; something more class defining mass murder.
Murder entire cities but it would just break my heart to put on that metal breastplate. *roll eyes*
Is there supposed to be an actual argument in there somewhere?
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 isn't an example of being proficient in a type of material. Whether or not "alchemical objects" counts as a type of material is irrelevant, because the "double" proficiency isn't in alchemical objects but rather ability checks using the History skill when trying to recall information about alchemical objects.
There's quite a difference between being proficient in using armor and weapons made of metal and being proficient in recalling information about metal.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I can answer some of this for you.
A lot of early D&D cherry-picked different elements from history and mythology. One of the inspirations for the druid was the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe. Druids would use a golden sickle to harvest mistletoe from a white oak. The sickle bears a resemblance to actual historical tools, and a stone sickle was a weapon of great significance in Greek mythology. Plus, its curved shape is reminiscent of the crescent moon; which is where their scimitar proficiency comes into play. No, there's no historical link between the two. That was just indicative of the early casual prejudices that dominated the hobby. Nowadays, it's retained more out of tradition. And, honestly, It's just a weapon.
Daggers are just knives, and they're basic tools. Every adventurer should have one. And a weapon can easily be picked up or put down.
The issues with armor are perhaps more interesting. Magic and how it works has evolved throughout the editions. And how different kinds of spellcasters interact with, say, the weave, also changes. In the case of the druid, they have a connection to the fey. Fey, traditionally, do not like iron. In fact, iron has a rich history of repelling various supernatural creatures in folklore. A druid might wield a weapon of metal against a dangerous supernatural foe, but they wouldn't risk separating their connection to magic by wearing iron. Every world in D&D is magical. The Weave...surrounds, penetrates, and binds everything and everyone together.
Now, every spellcaster manipulates the Weave differently. Wizards and artificers see magic as a science and rely on formula. Then there are sorcerers; who do it purely on instinct. Others, like bards, use performance to coax a desired effect; not unlike Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur. Still more, like clerics and warlocks, wield magic as gifts and revelations from otherworldly beings. But druids are...different. They're "nature wizards" who don't cast spells like wizards, and what they do is usually classified as divine (sometimes primal). So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this right here does a better job of describing how they prepare and cast spells than anything I can come up with on my own.
And, again, metal (specifically iron or steel) armor would at least carry the superstition of interfering with one's connection. A druid who can feel magic inside them and flowing through them isn't going to want to wear anything which impedes that flow. They're going to want to feel it all the time.
And this is just one justification. There are others. Arguing over why the restriction exists isn't helpful. Limitations can spur creative thinking. Yes, we can hand-waive whatever we want. But then we get into questions of why hand-waiving some things but not others. And we shouldn't be playing mental gymnastics to excuse why we do things a certain way. Because we cannot have it both ways. Either the restrictions matter, and we come up with reasons for how they can make sense to us. Or they don't, and we can do whatever we want but we still have to justify these changes. If we don't, then nothing matters.
Great explanation of background and folklore. Thanks.
I'm a huge proponent of restrictions creating opportunities for creativity in game. The metal interfering with the weave when on the body vs held by the body is a bit suspect, but I get the reference points.
If I we're going to go with the restriction on metal armour, (I'd include studded leather) then I'd just be more likely to extend that to metal items, specifically forged weapon items, but also metal shovels, pitons, rods, etc. Raw metals like copper, gold, silver, and platinum would still be carried though due to the monetary system in game. Because of their raw, natural unforged, state these metals would be fair game.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
Personally, if there was going to be a change to this, I'd rather see Wizards double down on the no metal armor thing and actually introduce these consequences that some people here seem to be clamoring for, than just allowing the metal armor... but I think it's perfectly fine the way it is.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
FWIW, this is false. Druids can Wild Shape 2/rest until they jump to infinite/at-will.
It's also not a "giant" pool unless you're a Moon Druid and the hit points aren't "free" since until very high levels spellcasting is impossible while shaped and you're a primary caster, on top of other crippling problems, like how a bunch of your bonuses drop or how you can no longer talk to your party members. In the general case, Clerics are better full casters than Druids are in the general case, and part of that is how weak Wild Shape is (not that Channel Divinity is particularly fantastic on its own, but because every Cleric subclass gives you at least one new CD, it's difficult to compare apples to apples there).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The entire game is built around restrictions and working within them. Druids and metal armor should not be a bridge too far for anyone. If it is, simply don't play a druid. Or, if you feel that strongly about it, talk to your DM about why your special snowflake would break that taboo.
If that's intended to be a dig at me, you're missing the mark by a country mile. You never had to play with me before because that's how choice works. We're all allowed to decide who we play alongside. Just as we're all allowed to decide the kinds of characters we play. We can mix and match races/lineages, classes, and backgrounds in practically any combination. And if someone elects to play a druid, they're doing so knowing full well about the restriction so many of you are incensed over. I just don't get it. You say you want us all to have choices; just not this choice.
Sucks that DM slamming the druid archeologist concept, though. I think it's at least worth a discussion; something to fine-tune.
Tasha's didn't actually fix as much as you, and a lot of others, think you did. The new options are just that: options. They're no more essential to the game than feats or multiclassing, and the DM is free to allow, disallow, or tweak to their heart's content. If anything, it's arguably made some far stronger characters. A mountain dwarf, with their medium armor proficiency and two +2 bonuses to their ability scores, now make for some fantastic sorcerers and wizards. Arguably better than anyone else. And, to be honest, I can't think of any races which were exclusively better for certain classes. But I'm also not obsessed with optimization because, by its very nature, optimization means removing options from the game.
I don't think I understand your thought process. Are druids supposed to be pacifists that refuse to harm animals? Are they all vegan? They understand the natural cycles better than probably anyone else. They can choose to, sure, and it's a valid way to play one. Beast Boy from the Teen Titans animated series (and it's soft-reboot Teen Titans Go!) is vegan, but it isn't a requirement. You could play a druid like a murderous member of Peta; if everyone else at the table were okay with it. But that's not me.
For me, the druid is the herbivore and the carnivore: predator and prey. They are also the gentle breeze, the hurricane, and the blizzard. They exist at an intersection, and to deny their place and role in the grand order is to deny themself. A druid might not enjoy killing this hypothetical turtle, but that doesn't mean they won't do it if necessary. We all do things we don't want to do, but still need to. After all, the turtle is no more innocent than a violent ankheg. They're both animals; following their instincts and natures. It isn't their fault if they harm someone or something.
Your dismissive attitude towards blatant dishonesty says far more about you than you might like. Not all opinions are created equal, and opinions rooted in falsehoods aren't worth a damn. You're all free to do what you want on your own, this much is true. But now I'm curious. If the opinions of others, especially those who disagree with you, don't matter to you, then why participate? What's your goal?
I have addressed this line of thinking several times in this thread, and never received a rebuttal from anyone.
Let's remove the flavor text (for now) and just deal with the hard mechanic: RAW, metal armor is not an option for Druids. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? If no, let's move to the flavor text.
You don't like that a role playing decision is being made for you. Okay, why not come up with your own reason that your Druid cannot wear metal armor? Just one example, wearing too much metal interferes with nature magic. It seems you are limiting yourself to being stuck with WoTC's role play reason for the mechanic, not the other way around.
Don't want to wear animal skin because your Druid does not want to harm animals? Re-skin (no pun intended) studded leather armor to be made from multi-layered, tightly woven vines from an ancient line of plants indigenous to your homeland.
Your thoughts?
My gripe is that there IS NO hard mechanic. I would be perfectly fine if the rule stated that the wearing of metal armor caused the druid to be at disadvantage on any spells/saves or lose the ability to cast/shape change, or some other "if/then" actual mechanic but the absence of such, and then the mealy mouth response from TPTB relegating it to being just a "taboo" to wear metal armor, tells me that they (TPTB) don't care enough about this being a rule to even spend a couple of sentences in an errata to give it a consequence. We have changed SO MUCH of the basic rules throughout all of 5E that if this really was meant to be a rule, it seems that there has been more than enough opportunity to assign a consequence to it.
Which leads me to the conclusion that it is INDEED just flavor text and never meant to be a rule - one with a mechanical consequence or not.
Edit: added the word 'changed.'
I have said this before as well - I don't care of it is flavored as heavy woven materials - Breast Plate provides higher AC - why wouldn't someone adventuring want to be able to protect themselves?
If you want to say the breast plate AC is, instead tightly woven material - I am fine with that.
I just don't think anyone else should tell me I can't do something, when a mechanic of the game says - I am proficient in Medium Armor - don't tell me what kind of Medium armor I can wear. It isn't that the metal gives adverse conditions, no where does it say - a druid will not wear metal armor because if they do their magic is messed up, they will blow up, they will have disadvantage on attacks... etc etc.. it doesn't say that there are negative consequences for wearing metal.
If someone wears heavy armor and are not proficient or do not have the strength, it says their are consequences...
Let me play me - I'll let you play you - and everyone can stay out of everyone's business about what we do and don't wear :-)
haha I did my reply to that other reply - without finish catching up - but yes - what you said!!
Yes they do. But that bypasses my first question. Question: Does that make Druids under powered? "That" meaning light armor until/if you acquire special medium armor. Your response to that will dictate my response to the rest of your post.
What he said was just a deflection to avoid dealing with the point. If you play rules as written, you ain't putting on metal armor. That's what I mean by hard mechanic.
No one here can stop you from playing how you want, or from running the game you want.
Arguing with everyone here is pointless. You aren't here to convert people to your way of thinking. If you want us to stay out of your business, then stay out of everyone else's and stop replying.
Not arguing lol and it is a topic I feel deeply about... so yeah whatever lol
Then what are you doing here?
Ya, a deflection because the rules allow you to play an evil druid, one capable of mass murder, heck there are even chaotic evil druidic gods (Malar) who delight in random slaughter...
But we gotta drawn the line at taking the same metal from your mace and putting it on your chest - that is apparently bridge too far; something more class defining mass murder.
Murder entire cities but it would just break my heart to put on that metal breastplate. *roll eyes*
Is there supposed to be an actual argument in there somewhere?
That isn't an example of being proficient in a type of material. Whether or not "alchemical objects" counts as a type of material is irrelevant, because the "double" proficiency isn't in alchemical objects but rather ability checks using the History skill when trying to recall information about alchemical objects.
There's quite a difference between being proficient in using armor and weapons made of metal and being proficient in recalling information about metal.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I can answer some of this for you.
A lot of early D&D cherry-picked different elements from history and mythology. One of the inspirations for the druid was the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe. Druids would use a golden sickle to harvest mistletoe from a white oak. The sickle bears a resemblance to actual historical tools, and a stone sickle was a weapon of great significance in Greek mythology. Plus, its curved shape is reminiscent of the crescent moon; which is where their scimitar proficiency comes into play. No, there's no historical link between the two. That was just indicative of the early casual prejudices that dominated the hobby. Nowadays, it's retained more out of tradition. And, honestly, It's just a weapon.
Daggers are just knives, and they're basic tools. Every adventurer should have one. And a weapon can easily be picked up or put down.
The issues with armor are perhaps more interesting. Magic and how it works has evolved throughout the editions. And how different kinds of spellcasters interact with, say, the weave, also changes. In the case of the druid, they have a connection to the fey. Fey, traditionally, do not like iron. In fact, iron has a rich history of repelling various supernatural creatures in folklore. A druid might wield a weapon of metal against a dangerous supernatural foe, but they wouldn't risk separating their connection to magic by wearing iron. Every world in D&D is magical. The Weave...surrounds, penetrates, and binds everything and everyone together.
Now, every spellcaster manipulates the Weave differently. Wizards and artificers see magic as a science and rely on formula. Then there are sorcerers; who do it purely on instinct. Others, like bards, use performance to coax a desired effect; not unlike Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur. Still more, like clerics and warlocks, wield magic as gifts and revelations from otherworldly beings. But druids are...different. They're "nature wizards" who don't cast spells like wizards, and what they do is usually classified as divine (sometimes primal). So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this right here does a better job of describing how they prepare and cast spells than anything I can come up with on my own.
And, again, metal (specifically iron or steel) armor would at least carry the superstition of interfering with one's connection. A druid who can feel magic inside them and flowing through them isn't going to want to wear anything which impedes that flow. They're going to want to feel it all the time.
And this is just one justification. There are others. Arguing over why the restriction exists isn't helpful. Limitations can spur creative thinking. Yes, we can hand-waive whatever we want. But then we get into questions of why hand-waiving some things but not others. And we shouldn't be playing mental gymnastics to excuse why we do things a certain way. Because we cannot have it both ways. Either the restrictions matter, and we come up with reasons for how they can make sense to us. Or they don't, and we can do whatever we want but we still have to justify these changes. If we don't, then nothing matters.
Great explanation of background and folklore. Thanks.
I'm a huge proponent of restrictions creating opportunities for creativity in game. The metal interfering with the weave when on the body vs held by the body is a bit suspect, but I get the reference points.
If I we're going to go with the restriction on metal armour, (I'd include studded leather) then I'd just be more likely to extend that to metal items, specifically forged weapon items, but also metal shovels, pitons, rods, etc. Raw metals like copper, gold, silver, and platinum would still be carried though due to the monetary system in game. Because of their raw, natural unforged, state these metals would be fair game.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind.
...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
Personally, if there was going to be a change to this, I'd rather see Wizards double down on the no metal armor thing and actually introduce these consequences that some people here seem to be clamoring for, than just allowing the metal armor... but I think it's perfectly fine the way it is.
FWIW, this is false. Druids can Wild Shape 2/rest until they jump to infinite/at-will.
It's also not a "giant" pool unless you're a Moon Druid and the hit points aren't "free" since until very high levels spellcasting is impossible while shaped and you're a primary caster, on top of other crippling problems, like how a bunch of your bonuses drop or how you can no longer talk to your party members. In the general case, Clerics are better full casters than Druids are in the general case, and part of that is how weak Wild Shape is (not that Channel Divinity is particularly fantastic on its own, but because every Cleric subclass gives you at least one new CD, it's difficult to compare apples to apples there).