I...don't think you're using the term "hybrid" correctly.
Druids, historically, began as an offshoot of the priest class from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But in practice, they're more like nature wizards. In 5th edition, it's still a class with full spellcasting progression. It's still capable of increasing its defenses, like a wizard with mage armor, by wearing armor and wielding a shield. It also has iconic spells like barkskin, and both druids and wizards, along with a smattering of others, can cast stoneskin. And this "hybrid" status is best exemplified by the Circle of the Land. It gains an additional cantrip, the near equivalent of Divine Domain spells, and the equivalent of Arcane Recovery. And that's just all their 2nd level features.
And none of this means they can't deal considerable damage and healing. Whether they're the "best" at any given role can vary from encounter to encounter. Not every bard or cleric is a better at magical healing, and not every sorcerer or wizard is better at dealing damage through their spells.
You may not think it hurts anything to allow for metal armor, and you're entitled to your opinion. Having said that, you've repeatedly dug in your heels; rather than listen and respond to the points others have made. You do not appear interested in having a discussion, and now you've resorted to calling people "butt hurt" for disagreeing with you.
Don't do that.
Going by memory here, but I think Druids began as a Wizard subclass, and you had to be “true neutral.”
Cleric, in the AD&D PHB; circa 1978. WotC redid it in PDF form in 2012, and it's currently available on DM's Guild.
Metallic ore is found in nature. Worked metal is not. Ore is subjected to intense heat to extract impurities so only the desired metal remains. This process removes metal's connection to nature by producing an unnatural substance. This stands in contrast to working with natural fibers and materials. Leather armor, like cuir bouilli, didn't have anything taken away. Rather, natural substances were added.
I think you're looking a bit too big (i.e. cosmological) to justify something for your own personal preferences. And if that's how you want to run things in your games at home, that's your purview. That said, I do think you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way.
There's little need to be so rude. I'm not trying to "justify" anything for any preferences. Simply that I find metal is, yes, part of nature. I would argue that ADDING to a substance, natural or otherwise, is no different than REMOVING things from them. Either way you are making something not found exactly in that way in nature, which is supposedly the whole argument behind why druids can't use metal armor. When removing impurities in metal, you're not severing its connection to nature because it's still at its core the same thing. Iron ore is still iron. I don't view it as any different than casting Purify Food and Drink. There is nothing stopping that spell with how it is written from being used to remove poison from poisonous berries, plants, or meat from a poisonous beast. And it is a Druid spell. Removing that which is poison from them is, I think, similar to removing impurities in metal.
Very importantly to the point about how iron is not "natural" but only in armor form, Druids have access to Reincarnate. "The magic fashions a new body for the creature to inhabit, which likely causes the creature's race to change... The reincarnated creature recalls its former life and experiences. It retains the capabilities it had in its original form, except it exchanges its original race for the new one and changes its racial traits accordingly". So the deceased becomes something completely new, with only the thing that makes them who they are intact (their memories). This also feels like the same thing as taking ore and basically doing the equivilent of distilling it to just iron.
Druids are not blocked from wearing metal. Druids can wear metal jewelery. They can wear metal buckles and charms. They are free to carry around copper telescopes and coin. They can use metal weapons, which I thought they couldn't until recently due to the block about armor. Heck, they can wear metal boots if they want to. Druids are allowed to possess as much metal as they choose, they just can't use shields or armor made out of it. Heat Metal is also a druid spell. So by using your own logic they are making things unnatural with their own magic. If they aren't, then they should be able to make metal armor with Heat Metal if it doesn't remove impurities. You also shouldn't be allowed to play a Warforged druid, but you can. If druids were entirely barred from wearing or handling metal outside coins (kept in a special bag or something), I would agree, perhaps, it makes perfect sense it interferes with their magic or some such. But it doesn't. No. A druid can wear or carry as much metal as they want, as long as it is not armor, and they are free to heat up metal which, as you say, removes impurities and makes metal unnatural. And this, for me, means the block on metal armor and weapons is very arbitrary and for folx like you who want to justify archaeic rules.
I don't even play druids (although I did build one around the concept of "no metal whatsoever" and also, vegan). I simply find the metal rule absoltuely ridiculous, and it makes little sense if you think about it and aren't trying to explain it away and telling people "you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way".
I did read why it's written this way. And I found the explanation makes little sense. The only thing druids are not allowed to with metal is either hold a shield made of it, or wear armor made of it. It just seems like an excuse.
It was not my intention to come across as rude. Having said that, you're not arguing against the points I've raised. Don't look at their spell list, because you won't find the answers you seek there. Don't look to their publication history, because each edition is different and enforces different rules. For example, we no longer have ex-druids and ex-paladins who need to atone.
Your insistence that the choice of druids to not use metal armor and shields is archaic is a personal preference. The current in-game justification is they simply choose not to. To be a druid means to be part of something bigger than the class features. They're just an abstraction for the sake of playing the game by its rules. In terms of story, all druids have a shared belief structure and choose a mystical order to belong to. It's not that they lack the capacity to wear metal armor. They can, but they choose not to. And it's not the DM, or someone else, forcing this restriction upon them, either. If they read the book, the class description, and choose to play a druid, then they are choosing to abide by this restriction. They are choosing to buy in to this story. They are choosing to not wear metal armor.
That's okay. And if that's what you're hung up on, that someone would choose to do this when it doesn't make, in your opinion, mechanical sense, then there's no reasoning with you. Your problem isn't with the rule; it's with people. You already admit to not playing a druid. You don't have a horse in this race. Why do you care so much?
Because it is taking away player agency. It does not make sense to get Medium armor proficiency and be banned from wearing any of it except what is worse than Light armor. It does not make sense to be able to wear metal jewelry and wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor. Metal armor is just as naturally occurring as tanned, boiled leather armor.
It would be like a class getting a cantrip, but the only choice is True Strike. Or gaining proficiency in martial weapons, but your only choice is the blowgun or the net. Why get it at all since you need some sort of magical or exotic armor that you need to go on a special quest for? In that case, it would just be easier to make higher AC light armor that requires attunement by a Druid.
How does it take away player agency anymore than just saying "Non-metal light and medium armor and shield proficiency"?
The Druid does not have a feature that restricts them from wearing metal armor akin. If it did it would look like the Monk class where a lot of its features just go offline the second you're in armor. Druids choosing to not wear armor is flavor text that can be ignored. Nothing mechanically is stopping a Druid from just choosing to wear armor or starting with vanilla beliefs about it and later changing their mind. There is not even potential for drawbacks for rejecting or even outright going against common Druidic beliefs like there is with the Paladin (Oathbreaker).
The Druid does not have a feature that restricts them from wearing metal armor akin. If it did it would look like the Monk class where a lot of its features just go offline the second you're in armor. Druids choosing to not wear armor is flavor text that can be ignored. Nothing mechanically is stopping a Druid from just choosing to wear armor or starting with vanilla beliefs about it and later changing their mind. There is not even potential for drawbacks for rejecting or even outright going against common Druidic beliefs like there is with the Paladin (Oathbreaker).
Sure they do. It explicit says they won't wear metal armor or carry metal shields. All they did was flavor up the wording of a game mechanic.
The Druid does not have a feature that restricts them from wearing metal armor akin.
They have a horribly worded rule that says they won't wear it, but doesn't explain why or what the consequences would be.
Yeah, their wording on many things can be vastly improved. Including whenever Jeremy Crawford "clarifies" a rule, or answers a question with a convoluted response that sort of kind of implies an answer.
Because it is taking away player agency. It does not make sense to get Medium armor proficiency and be banned from wearing any of it except what is worse than Light armor. It does not make sense to be able to wear metal jewelry and wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor. Metal armor is just as naturally occurring as tanned, boiled leather armor.
It would be like a class getting a cantrip, but the only choice is True Strike. Or gaining proficiency in martial weapons, but your only choice is the blowgun or the net. Why get it at all since you need some sort of magical or exotic armor that you need to go on a special quest for? In that case, it would just be easier to make higher AC light armor that requires attunement by a Druid.
No one is taking away player agency because it's only through player agency that anyone plays a druid. Just as it's only through player agency that someone might play a dwarf; complete with proficiency with the handaxe, light hammer, battleaxe, and warhammer. Again, no one is tying anyone's hands. How can you soerroneously ignore player choice in this?
And why are you so keen to just throw out possible adventuring opportunities and rewards?
It's also true their proficiency with medium armor dates back to the 3rd edition Player's Handbook (2000). And even back then, they had ways of getting armor made from exotic materials.
I will also remind our readers that Druids that follow Mielikki in 3rd edition, "took on the abilities of rangers, including the ability to wear all kinds of armor usable by rangers, even metal armor"
Metallic ore is found in nature. Worked metal is not. Ore is subjected to intense heat to extract impurities so only the desired metal remains. This process removes metal's connection to nature by producing an unnatural substance. This stands in contrast to working with natural fibers and materials. Leather armor, like cuir bouilli, didn't have anything taken away. Rather, natural substances were added.
I don't know if I would call anything that happens in a tannery natural. Besides, such an argument would only be valid if druids were ALSO prohibited from using metal weapons, which they are not. A druid can kill you with a worked metal mace to the face, but can't wear a worked metal breastplate? That mace is no more connected to nature than the breastplate.
Alright took awhile to read everybody's comments and get caught up but I'm gonna go ahead and throw my 2 cents in as I've played druids and thought about this a bit.
1. In 5e, RAW, your best options are studded leather, hide, serpent scale, dragon scale, and ring mail (yes u need heavy armor prof for this one). What are the rings and studs made of? I dunno who cares. It feels like there was supposed to be an option to make better hide armor out of monsters that got pulled at the last minute. I figure smart DMs let the PCs do something like that if they're a non moon druid who actually needs armor (mine gave me a coral breastplate that needed seawater once a day). I really like the fellow farther up the thread who traded mage armor for darkvision with the party wizard.
2. My head canon explanation for why the taboo exists, and it's just me but I think it makes sense, is that EVERY druid is deliberately given some version of this experience: one day when you were a little apprentice druid your mentor took you out to see the local lord who had decided to tear down the forest. He came in wearing plate with a bunch of knights. Your mentor threw heat metal on him from the bushes. "Do we leave now?" you asked. "No. You WATCH this." When the lord had died a horrible screaming death and his knights had gone home, your mentor turned to you and said "THAT's why you don't wear metal armor." Your character has been carrying that PTSD around ever since. Medium armor and above take so long to remove that most people will almost definitely die from heat metal. A shield or a weapon comes off in one round tops. Granted, a druid can wildshape but they have to leave their armor behind. I figure this single spell is the main thing keeping civilization back from druid turf and the taboo against wearing metal figures into it.
Granted, a druid can wildshape but they have to leave their armor behind.
Wild Shape:
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it.(yes, worn by it) Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
So, that bugbear druid wearing a chainmail shirt, just might continue to wear it when they transform to a black bear - especially if it is magic armor since that does typically resized automatically. Note, not suggesting bugbears and bears are related, just picked a character race that is likely to be of similar size and weight.
I didn't count that option because it feels like you're begging the DM to rule that it's inside of you now and it's still burning you. Obviously there's an argument to be made about the 'no effect' part of the text, and whether it just means you don't get an AC bonus from it but a spell on it would supercede it, but if the armor's lying on the ground there's no argument period. ...if you DO want to up your wildshape AC really easily Crawford has confirmed that 1 lvl of monk is valid. And the reason I think druids would be afraid of other druids hitting em w heat metal: in 1e you could only gain upper druid levels by beating them off of higher druids.
Because it is taking away player agency. It does not make sense to get Medium armor proficiency and be banned from wearing any of it except what is worse than Light armor. It does not make sense to be able to wear metal jewelry and wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor. Metal armor is just as naturally occurring as tanned, boiled leather armor.
It would be like a class getting a cantrip, but the only choice is True Strike. Or gaining proficiency in martial weapons, but your only choice is the blowgun or the net. Why get it at all since you need some sort of magical or exotic armor that you need to go on a special quest for? In that case, it would just be easier to make higher AC light armor that requires attunement by a Druid.
No one is taking away player agency because it's only through player agency that anyone plays a druid. Just as it's only through player agency that someone might play a dwarf; complete with proficiency with the handaxe, light hammer, battleaxe, and warhammer. Again, no one is tying anyone's hands. How can you soerroneously ignore player choice in this?
And why are you so keen to just throw out possible adventuring opportunities and rewards?
Because now the Druid has to be the protagonist for a group game. Or what if the rest of the party says, "No, we really don't want to delay our time sensitive main quest of saving the world so that you can get new armor."
Or what if you are playing a Druid in a dungeon crawl or Curse of Strahd and there literally is no option to go off questing for fancy armor materials? The Druid just gets shafted because they threw in a line that dictates character roleplay?
Okay, this is a lot to unpack.
No, the druid does not have to become the protagonist of the group. There is no main character syndrome in effect simply because a druid is present. What's worse, you're deliberately imposing an unfavorable scenario to try and score cheap points. They could just as easily already gotten their special armor before the Doomsday Clock started ticking, or they might get said armor along the way. In fact, they actually can in Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Druids can potentially walk away with both a staff of fire and white dragon scale mail. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom there's half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Truthfully, you never know what you'll find. And that's half the fun.
Which brings us to the dungeon crawl; whatever you think that means. Again, any conceivable loot could be there. There's some mariner's scale mail in The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (the first adventure from Ghosts of Saltmarsh) that a DM could easily say isn't metal. Because, as you should know, magic items can explicitly be made from exotic materials.
And, finally, let's look at Curse of Strahd; where being resource starved is intentionally part of the adventure. Players aren't supposed to have an easy time upgrading their equipment and resupplying. A bard, druid, or rogue isn't finding studded leather anywhere. Not unless they feel like murdering civilians and stealing from their corpse. Everyone gets shafted in Barovia. That's kind of the point.
None of your arguments hold up, and I sincerely hope they come from ignorance and not malice. We can fix ignorance.
Because it is taking away player agency. It does not make sense to get Medium armor proficiency and be banned from wearing any of it except what is worse than Light armor. It does not make sense to be able to wear metal jewelry and wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor. Metal armor is just as naturally occurring as tanned, boiled leather armor.
It would be like a class getting a cantrip, but the only choice is True Strike. Or gaining proficiency in martial weapons, but your only choice is the blowgun or the net. Why get it at all since you need some sort of magical or exotic armor that you need to go on a special quest for? In that case, it would just be easier to make higher AC light armor that requires attunement by a Druid.
How does it take away player agency anymore than just saying "Non-metal light and medium armor and shield proficiency"?
Because it says that druids will not wear metal armor. Not that they can't or will lose class features (ala Monk), just that they chose not to. So, you are forced to make a choice whether you want to or not. It doesn't say anywhere that they won't kill animals or cut down trees, though I feel that most would avoid this unless necessary. It doesn't even say that they won't use metal weapons (which for the life of me I cannot see how metal weapons are more natural than metal armor). But for some reason the PHB makes a roleplaying absolute for metal armor.
Because it is taking away player agency. It does not make sense to get Medium armor proficiency and be banned from wearing any of it except what is worse than Light armor. It does not make sense to be able to wear metal jewelry and wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor. Metal armor is just as naturally occurring as tanned, boiled leather armor.
It would be like a class getting a cantrip, but the only choice is True Strike. Or gaining proficiency in martial weapons, but your only choice is the blowgun or the net. Why get it at all since you need some sort of magical or exotic armor that you need to go on a special quest for? In that case, it would just be easier to make higher AC light armor that requires attunement by a Druid.
No one is taking away player agency because it's only through player agency that anyone plays a druid. Just as it's only through player agency that someone might play a dwarf; complete with proficiency with the handaxe, light hammer, battleaxe, and warhammer. Again, no one is tying anyone's hands. How can you soerroneously ignore player choice in this?
And why are you so keen to just throw out possible adventuring opportunities and rewards?
Because now the Druid has to be the protagonist for a group game. Or what if the rest of the party says, "No, we really don't want to delay our time sensitive main quest of saving the world so that you can get new armor."
Or what if you are playing a Druid in a dungeon crawl or Curse of Strahd and there literally is no option to go off questing for fancy armor materials? The Druid just gets shafted because they threw in a line that dictates character roleplay?
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
No, the druid does not have to become the protagonist of the group. There is no main character syndrome in effect simply because a druid is present. What's worse, you're deliberately imposing an unfavorable scenario to try and score cheap points. They could just as easily already gotten their special armor before the Doomsday Clock started ticking, or they might get said armor along the way. In fact, they actually can in Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Druids can potentially walk away with both a staff of fire and white dragon scale mail. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom there's half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Truthfully, you never know what you'll find. And that's half the fun.
Which brings us to the dungeon crawl; whatever you think that means. Again, any conceivable loot could be there. There's some mariner's scale mail in The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (the first adventure from Ghosts of Saltmarsh) that a DM could easily say isn't metal. Because, as you should know, magic items can explicitly be made from exotic materials.
And, finally, let's look at Curse of Strahd; where being resource starved is intentionally part of the adventure. Players aren't supposed to have an easy time upgrading their equipment and resupplying. A bard, druid, or rogue isn't finding studded leather anywhere. Not unless they feel like murdering civilians and stealing from their corpse. Everyone gets shafted in Barovia. That's kind of the point.
None of your arguments hold up, and I sincerely hope they come from ignorance and not malice. We can fix ignorance
If your whole party has to go on a quest so the Druid can upgrade his armor, you're kinda making him the main character, don't you think?
So, you're argument is that the DM should just handwave some magical, exotic material armor into the game specifically for the Druid? I think it would be a whole lot easier to handwave the silliness on metal armor. Let's say your fighter found some Plate and no longer needs his Breastplate. In order for the Druid to use it, the DM would have to retcon it to be some sort of turtle shell or big piece of ironwood. If you're going to require hand waving for a Druid to use his proficiency, why not just handwave the "No Metal Armor" bit?
If the former happens, and the druid player becomes the focus for a little while, it's okay. Momentum in a story swings back and forth like a pendulum. It isn't always about the metaplot and the BBEG. Sometimes the stakes are smaller and more intimate. A character might get called away on business they need to attend to, and everyone else tags along because they're invested in this character. Because that's what friends and family do. They care about people.
And, honestly, if everyone is on board with questing to go and get this super special armor for the druid...what's the problem? They're playing the game they want, having the adventures they want. You're arguing against groups you don't even play with having fun that doesn't match your ideals. Just...why?
And it isn't hand-waiving if the rules are specifically in the DMG. I know people not reading it is practically a meme, but come on. I ran a game of Rime of the Frostmaiden where we had an artificer, a bard, a fighter, and a paladin. Early on they did the Good Mead quest and found both a pearl of power and a wand of the war mage. The artificer laid claim to the pearl, because they could prepare identify and free up a known spell for the bard. The wand, I decided, would also be a yew wand so the druid could use it as a spellcasting focus. The book didn't call for it to be one, but I figured why not. I didn't hurt anything. Allowing for more exotic materials from the start creates a more wondrous world. If everything were just iron or steel I think it would actually take away some of that magic.
I think it's past time you accept that not everyone likes to play the way you do and move on.
I am arguing against this being a necessity to use part of a class.
Because what if everyone at the table is NOT okay with doing a side quest for the sole benefit of the Druid? Then either that player is having less fun being dragged along to do something they don't want to, or the Druid is having less fun because they can't use that magical Medium armor that was just looted by the party (unless the DM just hand-waves it as exotic).
You're assuming the druid player is having less fun being dragged around when they (A) agreed to play a druid in the first place, restrictions and all, and (B) can simply get up from the table and leave the group whenever they like.
Because no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I'll say it again, because it bears repeating. You have never played a druid. You don't honestly care because this doesn't impact you in the slightest. So why are you arguing so fervently? This isn't about justice for players or giving them agency you think they lack. They're choosing to play with these restrictions. They're exercising agency when they play as a druid.
Is this druid-envy? Do you just want to play one without the "silly" restriction? Because, if so, go talk to your DM.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
In both situations if I’m the player, regardless of whether my PC is John or Stephen, I am restricted from eating peanut butter. They are functionally the same.
In terms of balance, is anyone here arguing that Druids need medium armor proficiency? I’m assuming we can all agree that with just light armor & shield the Druid is at least balanced, and I would argue one of the more powerful and versatile classes, both in and out of combat.
if we set aside the wording of the restriction, there’s nothing really to complain about. IF you are going to wear medium armor, it has to be non-metal. It’s just a game mechanic and with it the Druid is plenty powerful.
So it all comes down just the wording “will not” instead of “cannot.” That seems pretty trivial to me. Especially because you can simply come up with your own reason why your Druid is restricted from wearing metal armor.
By tier 2 it's 2 points of AC, or 3 point if you accept stealth disadvantage.
Cleric, in the AD&D PHB; circa 1978. WotC redid it in PDF form in 2012, and it's currently available on DM's Guild.
It was not my intention to come across as rude. Having said that, you're not arguing against the points I've raised. Don't look at their spell list, because you won't find the answers you seek there. Don't look to their publication history, because each edition is different and enforces different rules. For example, we no longer have ex-druids and ex-paladins who need to atone.
Your insistence that the choice of druids to not use metal armor and shields is archaic is a personal preference. The current in-game justification is they simply choose not to. To be a druid means to be part of something bigger than the class features. They're just an abstraction for the sake of playing the game by its rules. In terms of story, all druids have a shared belief structure and choose a mystical order to belong to. It's not that they lack the capacity to wear metal armor. They can, but they choose not to. And it's not the DM, or someone else, forcing this restriction upon them, either. If they read the book, the class description, and choose to play a druid, then they are choosing to abide by this restriction. They are choosing to buy in to this story. They are choosing to not wear metal armor.
That's okay. And if that's what you're hung up on, that someone would choose to do this when it doesn't make, in your opinion, mechanical sense, then there's no reasoning with you. Your problem isn't with the rule; it's with people. You already admit to not playing a druid. You don't have a horse in this race. Why do you care so much?
How does it take away player agency anymore than just saying "Non-metal light and medium armor and shield proficiency"?
The Druid does not have a feature that restricts them from wearing metal armor akin. If it did it would look like the Monk class where a lot of its features just go offline the second you're in armor. Druids choosing to not wear armor is flavor text that can be ignored. Nothing mechanically is stopping a Druid from just choosing to wear armor or starting with vanilla beliefs about it and later changing their mind. There is not even potential for drawbacks for rejecting or even outright going against common Druidic beliefs like there is with the Paladin (Oathbreaker).
Sure they do. It explicit says they won't wear metal armor or carry metal shields. All they did was flavor up the wording of a game mechanic.
They have a horribly worded rule that says they won't wear it, but doesn't explain why or what the consequences would be.
Yeah, their wording on many things can be vastly improved. Including whenever Jeremy Crawford "clarifies" a rule, or answers a question with a convoluted response that sort of kind of implies an answer.
No one is taking away player agency because it's only through player agency that anyone plays a druid. Just as it's only through player agency that someone might play a dwarf; complete with proficiency with the handaxe, light hammer, battleaxe, and warhammer. Again, no one is tying anyone's hands. How can you so erroneously ignore player choice in this?
And why are you so keen to just throw out possible adventuring opportunities and rewards?
I will also remind our readers that Druids that follow Mielikki in 3rd edition, "took on the abilities of rangers, including the ability to wear all kinds of armor usable by rangers, even metal armor"
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Church_of_Mielikki
I don't know if I would call anything that happens in a tannery natural. Besides, such an argument would only be valid if druids were ALSO prohibited from using metal weapons, which they are not. A druid can kill you with a worked metal mace to the face, but can't wear a worked metal breastplate? That mace is no more connected to nature than the breastplate.
Alright took awhile to read everybody's comments and get caught up but I'm gonna go ahead and throw my 2 cents in as I've played druids and thought about this a bit.
1. In 5e, RAW, your best options are studded leather, hide, serpent scale, dragon scale, and ring mail (yes u need heavy armor prof for this one). What are the rings and studs made of? I dunno who cares. It feels like there was supposed to be an option to make better hide armor out of monsters that got pulled at the last minute. I figure smart DMs let the PCs do something like that if they're a non moon druid who actually needs armor (mine gave me a coral breastplate that needed seawater once a day). I really like the fellow farther up the thread who traded mage armor for darkvision with the party wizard.
2. My head canon explanation for why the taboo exists, and it's just me but I think it makes sense, is that EVERY druid is deliberately given some version of this experience: one day when you were a little apprentice druid your mentor took you out to see the local lord who had decided to tear down the forest. He came in wearing plate with a bunch of knights. Your mentor threw heat metal on him from the bushes. "Do we leave now?" you asked. "No. You WATCH this." When the lord had died a horrible screaming death and his knights had gone home, your mentor turned to you and said "THAT's why you don't wear metal armor." Your character has been carrying that PTSD around ever since. Medium armor and above take so long to remove that most people will almost definitely die from heat metal. A shield or a weapon comes off in one round tops. Granted, a druid can wildshape but they have to leave their armor behind. I figure this single spell is the main thing keeping civilization back from druid turf and the taboo against wearing metal figures into it.
Wild Shape:
So, that bugbear druid wearing a chainmail shirt, just might continue to wear it when they transform to a black bear - especially if it is magic armor since that does typically resized automatically. Note, not suggesting bugbears and bears are related, just picked a character race that is likely to be of similar size and weight.
I didn't count that option because it feels like you're begging the DM to rule that it's inside of you now and it's still burning you. Obviously there's an argument to be made about the 'no effect' part of the text, and whether it just means you don't get an AC bonus from it but a spell on it would supercede it, but if the armor's lying on the ground there's no argument period.
...if you DO want to up your wildshape AC really easily Crawford has confirmed that 1 lvl of monk is valid.
And the reason I think druids would be afraid of other druids hitting em w heat metal: in 1e you could only gain upper druid levels by beating them off of higher druids.
Okay, this is a lot to unpack.
No, the druid does not have to become the protagonist of the group. There is no main character syndrome in effect simply because a druid is present. What's worse, you're deliberately imposing an unfavorable scenario to try and score cheap points. They could just as easily already gotten their special armor before the Doomsday Clock started ticking, or they might get said armor along the way. In fact, they actually can in Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Druids can potentially walk away with both a staff of fire and white dragon scale mail. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom there's half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Truthfully, you never know what you'll find. And that's half the fun.
Which brings us to the dungeon crawl; whatever you think that means. Again, any conceivable loot could be there. There's some mariner's scale mail in The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (the first adventure from Ghosts of Saltmarsh) that a DM could easily say isn't metal. Because, as you should know, magic items can explicitly be made from exotic materials.
And, finally, let's look at Curse of Strahd; where being resource starved is intentionally part of the adventure. Players aren't supposed to have an easy time upgrading their equipment and resupplying. A bard, druid, or rogue isn't finding studded leather anywhere. Not unless they feel like murdering civilians and stealing from their corpse. Everyone gets shafted in Barovia. That's kind of the point.
None of your arguments hold up, and I sincerely hope they come from ignorance and not malice. We can fix ignorance.
No more than anyone else. Any character who needs or wants specialized gear has the same problem.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
If the former happens, and the druid player becomes the focus for a little while, it's okay. Momentum in a story swings back and forth like a pendulum. It isn't always about the metaplot and the BBEG. Sometimes the stakes are smaller and more intimate. A character might get called away on business they need to attend to, and everyone else tags along because they're invested in this character. Because that's what friends and family do. They care about people.
And, honestly, if everyone is on board with questing to go and get this super special armor for the druid...what's the problem? They're playing the game they want, having the adventures they want. You're arguing against groups you don't even play with having fun that doesn't match your ideals. Just...why?
And it isn't hand-waiving if the rules are specifically in the DMG. I know people not reading it is practically a meme, but come on. I ran a game of Rime of the Frostmaiden where we had an artificer, a bard, a fighter, and a paladin. Early on they did the Good Mead quest and found both a pearl of power and a wand of the war mage. The artificer laid claim to the pearl, because they could prepare identify and free up a known spell for the bard. The wand, I decided, would also be a yew wand so the druid could use it as a spellcasting focus. The book didn't call for it to be one, but I figured why not. I didn't hurt anything. Allowing for more exotic materials from the start creates a more wondrous world. If everything were just iron or steel I think it would actually take away some of that magic.
I think it's past time you accept that not everyone likes to play the way you do and move on.
You're assuming the druid player is having less fun being dragged around when they (A) agreed to play a druid in the first place, restrictions and all, and (B) can simply get up from the table and leave the group whenever they like.
Because no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I'll say it again, because it bears repeating. You have never played a druid. You don't honestly care because this doesn't impact you in the slightest. So why are you arguing so fervently? This isn't about justice for players or giving them agency you think they lack. They're choosing to play with these restrictions. They're exercising agency when they play as a druid.
Is this druid-envy? Do you just want to play one without the "silly" restriction? Because, if so, go talk to your DM.
In both situations if I’m the player, regardless of whether my PC is John or Stephen, I am restricted from eating peanut butter. They are functionally the same.
In terms of balance, is anyone here arguing that Druids need medium armor proficiency? I’m assuming we can all agree that with just light armor & shield the Druid is at least balanced, and I would argue one of the more powerful and versatile classes, both in and out of combat.
if we set aside the wording of the restriction, there’s nothing really to complain about. IF you are going to wear medium armor, it has to be non-metal. It’s just a game mechanic and with it the Druid is plenty powerful.
So it all comes down just the wording “will not” instead of “cannot.” That seems pretty trivial to me. Especially because you can simply come up with your own reason why your Druid is restricted from wearing metal armor.