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