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.
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.
Why do you think I've never played a Druid?? I have, but that doesn't even have any relevance to the conversation. I've even played a Warforged Druid before, which makes the "NO METAL ARMOR!!" even more inane.
Or do I have to meet some sort of requirement in your book to have an opinion? Maybe some people get turned off to the class due to the restriction. Are they not allowed to have an opinion? You're basically saying that if I think some of the rules or restrictions are poorly designed/unnecessary that my opinions are bad and I should feel bad.
But really, thank you for telling me about my life and how I feel and think. I'm so glad some stranger on the internet knows my innermost thoughts and can tell me I'm hot garbage.
Sorry, I confused you for someone else who seemingly shares your opinion. You did like one of their posts, if it helps.
So what if people are turned off to the class? There are 12 in the PHB. You don't have to like every class. Likewise, you don't have to like every subclass, race, or background. There are tens of thousands of possible combinations you can use to make characters in that one book. The idea is there's supposed to be something for everyone. It doesn't mean everyone has to like everything. Oh, no, this one spellcasting class doesn't appeal to every player. It will appeal to some, and that some is enough. Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream for a reason. You don't need to try or like them all to keep coming back.
Purity tests serve no one, so something not being for you does not make that something bad. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. I don't care one whit about the opinions of someone who thinks the Earth is flat and climate change isn't a problem. Both are opinions, and both are objectively wrong.
The people who play druids as they are don't have a problem with them. You even played a druid, so unless your DM made an exception you played one with that restriction in tact. Did it actually harm your enjoyment? And if so, how?
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
Let's revisit the earlier examples of John and Steven.
John chooses not to eat peanut butter while Steven cannot, or he will die. But these aren't people. These are characters on sheets of paper. The player, an actual person, can choose which character to play as. No one is forcing their hand. But, functionally, the difference to the player is irrelevant. Either way, these characters aren't dealing with peanut butter.
The player can choose to play as one of the above. They might also choose Michael, who has no such aversion to peanut butter, or to not play at all.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Context doesn't change the definition.
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can’t willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can’t take reactions.
It doesn't state that it can't move. It is not frozen like an immovable rod. It states it can't CHOSE to move. It can still be moved by other forces. It goes on to state CAN'T take reactions, not choses/will not take them.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance,
It doesn't state a Paladin CANT violate their oath, it states if a paladin CHOSES to break their oath.
If your deity intervenes, you can’t use this feature again for 7 days.
It does not state WILL NOT use.
Channel Divinity: Preserve Life
You can’t use this feature on an undead or a construct.
It doesn't state WILL NOT. You lack the capability to use that feature on undead or constructs.
The PHB is full of various will/can't conditions. All of them are rather clear - except this one. In ALL OTHER CASES, will clearly implies a choice where as can't clear indication a condition where the capability simply does not exist.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Exactly. Hawkwin, Why did you cut off the rest of my post?
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor. The net affect to the player is the same, is it not?
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.
Sorry, I confused you for someone else who seemingly shares your opinion. You did like one of their posts, if it helps.
So what if people are turned off to the class? There are 12 in the PHB. You don't have to like every class. Likewise, you don't have to like every subclass, race, or background. There are tens of thousands of possible combinations you can use to make characters in that one book. The idea is there's supposed to be something for everyone. It doesn't mean everyone has to like everything. Oh, no, this one spellcasting class doesn't appeal to every player. It will appeal to some, and that some is enough. Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream for a reason. You don't need to try or like them all to keep coming back.
Purity tests serve no one, so something not being for you does not make that something bad. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. I don't care one whit about the opinions of someone who thinks the Earth is flat and climate change isn't a problem. Both are opinions, and both are objectively wrong.
The people who play druids as they are don't have a problem with them. You even played a druid, so unless your DM made an exception you played one with that restriction in tact. Did it actually harm your enjoyment? And if so, how?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
Let's revisit the earlier examples of John and Steven.
John chooses not to eat peanut butter while Steven cannot, or he will die. But these aren't people. These are characters on sheets of paper. The player, an actual person, can choose which character to play as. No one is forcing their hand. But, functionally, the difference to the player is irrelevant. Either way, these characters aren't dealing with peanut butter.
The player can choose to play as one of the above. They might also choose Michael, who has no such aversion to peanut butter, or to not play at all.
Context doesn't change the definition.
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can’t willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can’t take reactions.
It doesn't state that it can't move. It is not frozen like an immovable rod. It states it can't CHOSE to move. It can still be moved by other forces. It goes on to state CAN'T take reactions, not choses/will not take them.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance,
It doesn't state a Paladin CANT violate their oath, it states if a paladin CHOSES to break their oath.
Eldritch Sight
You can cast detect magic at will
When you chose.
Divine Intervention
If your deity intervenes, you can’t use this feature again for 7 days.
It does not state WILL NOT use.
Channel Divinity: Preserve Life
You can’t use this feature on an undead or a construct.
It doesn't state WILL NOT. You lack the capability to use that feature on undead or constructs.
The PHB is full of various will/can't conditions. All of them are rather clear - except this one. In ALL OTHER CASES, will clearly implies a choice where as can't clear indication a condition where the capability simply does not exist.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Exactly. Hawkwin, Why did you cut off the rest of my post?
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor. The net affect to the player is the same, is it not?
👆