There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I can answer some of this for you.
A lot of early D&D cherry-picked different elements from history and mythology. One of the inspirations for the druid was the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe. Druids would use a golden sickle to harvest mistletoe from a white oak. The sickle bears a resemblance to actual historical tools, and a stone sickle was a weapon of great significance in Greek mythology. Plus, its curved shape is reminiscent of the crescent moon; which is where their scimitar proficiency comes into play. No, there's no historical link between the two. That was just indicative of the early casual prejudices that dominated the hobby. Nowadays, it's retained more out of tradition. And, honestly, It's just a weapon.
Daggers are just knives, and they're basic tools. Every adventurer should have one. And a weapon can easily be picked up or put down.
The issues with armor are perhaps more interesting. Magic and how it works has evolved throughout the editions. And how different kinds of spellcasters interact with, say, the weave, also changes. In the case of the druid, they have a connection to the fey. Fey, traditionally, do not like iron. In fact, iron has a rich history of repelling various supernatural creatures in folklore. A druid might wield a weapon of metal against a dangerous supernatural foe, but they wouldn't risk separating their connection to magic by wearing iron. Every world in D&D is magical. The Weave...surrounds, penetrates, and binds everything and everyone together.
Now, every spellcaster manipulates the Weave differently. Wizards and artificers see magic as a science and rely on formula. Then there are sorcerers; who do it purely on instinct. Others, like bards, use performance to coax a desired effect; not unlike Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur. Still more, like clerics and warlocks, wield magic as gifts and revelations from otherworldly beings. But druids are...different. They're "nature wizards" who don't cast spells like wizards, and what they do is usually classified as divine (sometimes primal). So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this right here does a better job of describing how they prepare and cast spells than anything I can come up with on my own.
And, again, metal (specifically iron or steel) armor would at least carry the superstition of interfering with one's connection. A druid who can feel magic inside them and flowing through them isn't going to want to wear anything which impedes that flow. They're going to want to feel it all the time.
And this is just one justification. There are others. Arguing over why the restriction exists isn't helpful. Limitations can spur creative thinking. Yes, we can hand-waive whatever we want. But then we get into questions of why hand-waiving some things but not others. And we shouldn't be playing mental gymnastics to excuse why we do things a certain way. Because we cannot have it both ways. Either the restrictions matter, and we come up with reasons for how they can make sense to us. Or they don't, and we can do whatever we want but we still have to justify these changes. If we don't, then nothing matters.
Great explanation of background and folklore. Thanks.
I'm a huge proponent of restrictions creating opportunities for creativity in game. The metal interfering with the weave when on the body vs held by the body is a bit suspect, but I get the reference points.
If I we're going to go with the restriction on metal armour, (I'd include studded leather) then I'd just be more likely to extend that to metal items, specifically forged weapon items, but also metal shovels, pitons, rods, etc. Raw metals like copper, gold, silver, and platinum would still be carried though due to the monetary system in game. Because of their raw, natural unforged, state these metals would be fair game.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
Personally, if there was going to be a change to this, I'd rather see Wizards double down on the no metal armor thing and actually introduce these consequences that some people here seem to be clamoring for, than just allowing the metal armor... but I think it's perfectly fine the way it is.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind. ...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
FWIW, this is false. Druids can Wild Shape 2/rest until they jump to infinite/at-will.
It's also not a "giant" pool unless you're a Moon Druid and the hit points aren't "free" since until very high levels spellcasting is impossible while shaped and you're a primary caster, on top of other crippling problems, like how a bunch of your bonuses drop or how you can no longer talk to your party members. In the general case, Clerics are better full casters than Druids are in the general case, and part of that is how weak Wild Shape is (not that Channel Divinity is particularly fantastic on its own, but because every Cleric subclass gives you at least one new CD, it's difficult to compare apples to apples there).
I haven't read all 16 pages, forgive me if this has already come up time and time again. Just want to throw out a bit of a cheeky 2 cents -
Beyond religious / cultural reasons, Druids might also not wear metal armor because they have firsthand experience in how devastating heat metal can be upon those that do. Maybe it's in part as simple as a "No capes" type situation where one too many victims of Heat Metal / Call Lightning / whatever have disabused them of the notion that it's "superior".
I haven't read all 16 pages, forgive me if this has already come up time and time again. Just want to throw out a bit of a cheeky 2 cents -
Beyond religious / cultural reasons, Druids might also not wear metal armor because they have firsthand experience in how devastating heat metal can be upon those that do. Maybe it's in part as simple as a "No capes" type situation where one too many victims of Heat Metal / Call Lightning / whatever have disabused them of the notion that it's "superior".
You may be on the right track.
The spell heat metal made its debut in Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry (1976), as a 2nd-level druid spell, and was later reprinted in the Player's Handbook (1978). It's also worth noting that, back then, there were only allowed to be a finite number of druids in the world at any given time. Heck, I don't think you actually earned the title of druid until you were around 9th-level. In order to go up the ranks and continue gaining levels, you would have to battle another, higher-ranked druid in single combat. This could prove fatal, so a prohibition on metal armor to prevent certain fire and lightning spells from giving one side an advantage makes sense.
As I stated before, the taboo can exist for any number of reasons. Even if something is no longer part of the rules, a tradition can still be alive and well. The limitation is an exercise to practice world-building. Accept the conceit, that druids choose not to wear metal armor, and use that to come up with a reason why. Breathe a little lift into your game.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
studded leather also uses metal, so that option is also out...
That sort of proves the point that Giant Octopodes and I raised earlier: Forge clerics aren't going to be dueling each other in the temple for the position of high priest (are they?)... seems like the god probably just wants to choose their favorite and have everybody else get back to work. By contrast, druids don't usually answer directly to any authority and much like nature they compete amongst themselves, sometimes to the death. I imagine druids pranking each other with heat metal and continual flame all the time. It also occurs to me that while a druid can escape Heat Metal by wildshaping and leaving their armor behind, a cleric is in prime position to defeat it the old fashioned way (breaking concentration notwithstanding): go stand in water for half damage if possible, then just keep dumping healing spells until the duration runs out. It's not pretty but it may barely get you there. If it's your buddy you can just let them drop to 0 then bring them back to 1 over and over. In fact bringing people back to 1 hp over and over with healing word is probably a mandatory and reviled cleric 101 course (good news is you probably won't be on the receiving end ever again after the class). I also JUST realized how nice Magic Initiate is on druid just for Mage Armor. Throw it on yourself before wildshaping or on snakes spiders fliers cats and dogs horses and raptors, not to mention giant apes and elementals, and enjoy the concentration free results for 8 hours.
I haven't read all 16 pages, forgive me if this has already come up time and time again. Just want to throw out a bit of a cheeky 2 cents -
Beyond religious / cultural reasons, Druids might also not wear metal armor because they have firsthand experience in how devastating heat metal can be upon those that do. Maybe it's in part as simple as a "No capes" type situation where one too many victims of Heat Metal / Call Lightning / whatever have disabused them of the notion that it's "superior".
You may be on the right track.
The spell heat metal made its debut in Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry (1976), as a 2nd-level druid spell, and was later reprinted in the Player's Handbook (1978). It's also worth noting that, back then, there were only allowed to be a finite number of druids in the world at any given time. Heck, I don't think you actually earned the title of druid until you were around 9th-level. In order to go up the ranks and continue gaining levels, you would have to battle another, higher-ranked druid in single combat. This could prove fatal, so a prohibition on metal armor to prevent certain fire and lightning spells from giving one side an advantage makes sense.
As I stated before, the taboo can exist for any number of reasons. Even if something is no longer part of the rules, a tradition can still be alive and well. The limitation is an exercise to practice world-building. Accept the conceit, that druids choose not to wear metal armor, and use that to come up with a reason why. Breathe a little lift into your game.
There are a lot of problems with that hypothesis.
Since druids were first introduced as NPCs in 1974 (two years prior), and since druids as playable class probably had their restrictions created PRIOR to the creation of the unique spells on their spell list (it is not logical that they made up a spell and then decided that they needed to protect the class from one of their own unique spells), it seems exceedingly unlikely that this little conceit is the justification for the restriction - especially considering the fact druids are not prohibited from using metal weapons that would of course also be the target of a heat metal spell.
Then there is the very likely result of druid combat being shape change so avoiding this trivial spell would be a rather easy option for a druid to overcome, even if they were wearing metal armor.
Add to this is the fact that this armor restriction FAR OUTLIVED the concept of druid combat to get promoted. That bit of silliness last only through 1st Edition if I recall so even if it was based on avoiding heat metal during such an event, it should have also died when that little bit of lore also died - just like the racial restrictions on who could be a druid (humans, half-elves, and halflings) also died.
1st Edition's focus on class balance ranked somewhere below avoiding racial tropes so I also doubt that this was about anything other than giving the class some "nature" flavor. My money is on One DnD ending this or at least bringing back a mechanic for when it is violated (like there used to be).
My plate armor is made of bone because I say so and the item description doesn't say what it is made out of.
Did the bone pieces grow into the shapes of the plates of the armor? Were the bone pieces cut into to bring them into the plate armour shapes? Is the bone magically strong or is there another reason why (even in it's uncustomized form) the bone has strength equivalent to the quality metals used for plate armor?
Otherwise, plate: "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. ..."
My plate armor is made of bone because I say so and the item description doesn't say what it is made out of.
Did the bone pieces grow into the shapes of the plates of the armor? Were the bone pieces cut into to bring them into the plate armour shapes? Is the bone magically strong or is there another reason why (even in it's uncustomized form) the bone has strength equivalent to the quality metals used for plate armor?
Otherwise, plate: "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. ..."
The only problem with that is DNDBeyond gives the 'generic' interpretation of "Plate" not allowing it to be changed, but it can be. You can have something with the same AC as Plate, but not made out of interlocking metal plates - but want to homebrew something like this bone 'plate' - it can very easily be made out of bone, reinforced strong enough to make it the same AC as Plate, the only other way is to add say 'leather' armor and bump up the AC bonus or something, but then that says it is leather. Bone studded leather works, and adding 'magic +
to ac.
Just because the wording isn't allowed to be changed doesn't change the fact that Dungeon and Dragons is a fantasy world, where someone can make this cool armor out of bones - and it is 100% allowed (per DM's ruling) so the 'nit picky' of 'interlocking metal' is just that, and luckily not a DM I play for.
My plate armor is made of bone because I say so and the item description doesn't say what it is made out of.
Did the bone pieces grow into the shapes of the plates of the armor? Were the bone pieces cut into to bring them into the plate armour shapes? Is the bone magically strong or is there another reason why (even in it's uncustomized form) the bone has strength equivalent to the quality metals used for plate armor?
Otherwise, plate: "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. ..."
The only problem with that is DNDBeyond gives the 'generic' interpretation of "Plate" not allowing it to be changed, but it can be.
DnDBeyond doesn't care. DnDBeyond does not restrict druids from wearing plate.
My plate armor is made of bone because I say so and the item description doesn't say what it is made out of.
Did the bone pieces grow into the shapes of the plates of the armor? Were the bone pieces cut into to bring them into the plate armour shapes? Is the bone magically strong or is there another reason why (even in it's uncustomized form) the bone has strength equivalent to the quality metals used for plate armor?
Otherwise, plate: "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. ..."
The only problem with that is DNDBeyond gives the 'generic' interpretation of "Plate" not allowing it to be changed, but it can be.
DnDBeyond doesn't care. DnDBeyond does not restrict druids from wearing plate.
Make ya wonder, right? ;)
Yeah, but I was specifically speaking on the 'plate mail' being made with bones instead - but yeah I wear what I want to wear and every DM I have had is fine, only one was a little pushing back of me wearing a breastplate, but then I just said it wasn't made of metal? and he said yeah that makes sense hahah
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are two ways I suggest to manage the penalties of the rule.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
The first is the easiest. Because the statement that they will not wear armor/shields made of metal falls under the proficiency section, then you should simply use the proficiency rules. If you wear metal armor then you suffer non proficiency penalties. While the wording is awkward and different the adjudication is simple.
The second is the hardest. If it is truly a character class role playing preference that is immutable then it presents itself probably most similar to the Paladin's vows. Breaking a Paladin's vow does not have a set mechanical penalty, but has a number of suggestions. Any of these suggestions could work as a way to penalize and atone should a druid get forced to wear metal armor. So in this case the mechanics much like with the vow is a role playing feature really left to the DM and player.
-------------------------
But we don't have 16 pages of comments here because people don't know how to adjudicate what to do if the druid is captured and forced to wear metal armor against their will. There are 16 pages of comments because there are people who want to play druids and wear metal armor. Some have honest role playing reasons, some just want to maximize armor class, some don't like having these choices taken away, and some want to multiclass a druid but it ruins their armor choices making the multiclass unworkable. We also have 16 pages because people would like to discuss what the rule SHOULD be or how it would be better stated.
I am for simply stating that Druid's are only proficient in non metal armor and shields. That is just me. There doesn't need to be a remedy or dragon scale for everyone, or bullette breastplate on every corner store. Dex+shield+studded provides a very reasonable AC. The game is fine.
I agree with this, but it is odd that Druids still use metal items. Why are Druids proficient with Scimitars, sickles, daggers, etc?
They can use items made of natural material (although metal is also natural, just "worked," and any other natural material would have to be "worked to make it into a weapon).
I personally don't care if a Druid shows up in full plate, I just would like some consistency with proficiencies. It might be more consistent to just add a phrase saying "assume all druid weapons are not metal but made from other natural materials like bone, wood, stone, scale and/or chitin." It's the inconsistency that I think leads to 16 pages of comments! ;)
I can answer some of this for you.
A lot of early D&D cherry-picked different elements from history and mythology. One of the inspirations for the druid was the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe. Druids would use a golden sickle to harvest mistletoe from a white oak. The sickle bears a resemblance to actual historical tools, and a stone sickle was a weapon of great significance in Greek mythology. Plus, its curved shape is reminiscent of the crescent moon; which is where their scimitar proficiency comes into play. No, there's no historical link between the two. That was just indicative of the early casual prejudices that dominated the hobby. Nowadays, it's retained more out of tradition. And, honestly, It's just a weapon.
Daggers are just knives, and they're basic tools. Every adventurer should have one. And a weapon can easily be picked up or put down.
The issues with armor are perhaps more interesting. Magic and how it works has evolved throughout the editions. And how different kinds of spellcasters interact with, say, the weave, also changes. In the case of the druid, they have a connection to the fey. Fey, traditionally, do not like iron. In fact, iron has a rich history of repelling various supernatural creatures in folklore. A druid might wield a weapon of metal against a dangerous supernatural foe, but they wouldn't risk separating their connection to magic by wearing iron. Every world in D&D is magical. The Weave...surrounds, penetrates, and binds everything and everyone together.
Now, every spellcaster manipulates the Weave differently. Wizards and artificers see magic as a science and rely on formula. Then there are sorcerers; who do it purely on instinct. Others, like bards, use performance to coax a desired effect; not unlike Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur. Still more, like clerics and warlocks, wield magic as gifts and revelations from otherworldly beings. But druids are...different. They're "nature wizards" who don't cast spells like wizards, and what they do is usually classified as divine (sometimes primal). So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this right here does a better job of describing how they prepare and cast spells than anything I can come up with on my own.
And, again, metal (specifically iron or steel) armor would at least carry the superstition of interfering with one's connection. A druid who can feel magic inside them and flowing through them isn't going to want to wear anything which impedes that flow. They're going to want to feel it all the time.
And this is just one justification. There are others. Arguing over why the restriction exists isn't helpful. Limitations can spur creative thinking. Yes, we can hand-waive whatever we want. But then we get into questions of why hand-waiving some things but not others. And we shouldn't be playing mental gymnastics to excuse why we do things a certain way. Because we cannot have it both ways. Either the restrictions matter, and we come up with reasons for how they can make sense to us. Or they don't, and we can do whatever we want but we still have to justify these changes. If we don't, then nothing matters.
Great explanation of background and folklore. Thanks.
I'm a huge proponent of restrictions creating opportunities for creativity in game. The metal interfering with the weave when on the body vs held by the body is a bit suspect, but I get the reference points.
If I we're going to go with the restriction on metal armour, (I'd include studded leather) then I'd just be more likely to extend that to metal items, specifically forged weapon items, but also metal shovels, pitons, rods, etc. Raw metals like copper, gold, silver, and platinum would still be carried though due to the monetary system in game. Because of their raw, natural unforged, state these metals would be fair game.
Game balance wise, and since we're discussing the mythological implications, it occurs to me the shapechanging angle could be argued to enter into it as well. No other full caster class gets a second power as versatile and useful as wildshape, imho. So game balance wise maybe the real reason for the weird armor restriction is because you can fly, breathe water, see in the dark, deliver poison, or just TURN INTO A BEAR to fight. It also sort of makes sense to me that organic materials like leather or wood could somehow transform easier but metal would mess it up... which means a cool house rule might be to say your druid CAN wear metal armor if they absolutely want it but if they wildshape they gotta leave it behind.
...oh and I highly recommend optional rule Wild Companion as well since Druids don't get find familiar... with that rule u can burn a 1st lvl slot to instantly spit off a familiar for a few hours - I use it to send owls with plot info scribbled on napkins back to relevant NPCs.
It's not simply that they can change shape that is the issue since changing shape in of itself isn't inherently a better superpower than what other classes get. The balance issue comes into play when you consider that changing shape in these rules is mechanically a giant pool of free hit points, and when you get into the higher levels, you're able to do that over and over again (infinitely at the highest level).
Personally, if there was going to be a change to this, I'd rather see Wizards double down on the no metal armor thing and actually introduce these consequences that some people here seem to be clamoring for, than just allowing the metal armor... but I think it's perfectly fine the way it is.
FWIW, this is false. Druids can Wild Shape 2/rest until they jump to infinite/at-will.
It's also not a "giant" pool unless you're a Moon Druid and the hit points aren't "free" since until very high levels spellcasting is impossible while shaped and you're a primary caster, on top of other crippling problems, like how a bunch of your bonuses drop or how you can no longer talk to your party members. In the general case, Clerics are better full casters than Druids are in the general case, and part of that is how weak Wild Shape is (not that Channel Divinity is particularly fantastic on its own, but because every Cleric subclass gives you at least one new CD, it's difficult to compare apples to apples there).
I haven't read all 16 pages, forgive me if this has already come up time and time again. Just want to throw out a bit of a cheeky 2 cents -
Beyond religious / cultural reasons, Druids might also not wear metal armor because they have firsthand experience in how devastating heat metal can be upon those that do. Maybe it's in part as simple as a "No capes" type situation where one too many victims of Heat Metal / Call Lightning / whatever have disabused them of the notion that it's "superior".
You may be on the right track.
The spell heat metal made its debut in Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry (1976), as a 2nd-level druid spell, and was later reprinted in the Player's Handbook (1978). It's also worth noting that, back then, there were only allowed to be a finite number of druids in the world at any given time. Heck, I don't think you actually earned the title of druid until you were around 9th-level. In order to go up the ranks and continue gaining levels, you would have to battle another, higher-ranked druid in single combat. This could prove fatal, so a prohibition on metal armor to prevent certain fire and lightning spells from giving one side an advantage makes sense.
As I stated before, the taboo can exist for any number of reasons. Even if something is no longer part of the rules, a tradition can still be alive and well. The limitation is an exercise to practice world-building. Accept the conceit, that druids choose not to wear metal armor, and use that to come up with a reason why. Breathe a little lift into your game.
studded leather also uses metal, so that option is also out...
That sort of proves the point that Giant Octopodes and I raised earlier: Forge clerics aren't going to be dueling each other in the temple for the position of high priest (are they?)... seems like the god probably just wants to choose their favorite and have everybody else get back to work. By contrast, druids don't usually answer directly to any authority and much like nature they compete amongst themselves, sometimes to the death. I imagine druids pranking each other with heat metal and continual flame all the time. It also occurs to me that while a druid can escape Heat Metal by wildshaping and leaving their armor behind, a cleric is in prime position to defeat it the old fashioned way (breaking concentration notwithstanding): go stand in water for half damage if possible, then just keep dumping healing spells until the duration runs out. It's not pretty but it may barely get you there. If it's your buddy you can just let them drop to 0 then bring them back to 1 over and over. In fact bringing people back to 1 hp over and over with healing word is probably a mandatory and reviled cleric 101 course (good news is you probably won't be on the receiving end ever again after the class).
I also JUST realized how nice Magic Initiate is on druid just for Mage Armor. Throw it on yourself before wildshaping or on snakes spiders fliers cats and dogs horses and raptors, not to mention giant apes and elementals, and enjoy the concentration free results for 8 hours.
There are a lot of problems with that hypothesis.
Since druids were first introduced as NPCs in 1974 (two years prior), and since druids as playable class probably had their restrictions created PRIOR to the creation of the unique spells on their spell list (it is not logical that they made up a spell and then decided that they needed to protect the class from one of their own unique spells), it seems exceedingly unlikely that this little conceit is the justification for the restriction - especially considering the fact druids are not prohibited from using metal weapons that would of course also be the target of a heat metal spell.
Then there is the very likely result of druid combat being shape change so avoiding this trivial spell would be a rather easy option for a druid to overcome, even if they were wearing metal armor.
Add to this is the fact that this armor restriction FAR OUTLIVED the concept of druid combat to get promoted. That bit of silliness last only through 1st Edition if I recall so even if it was based on avoiding heat metal during such an event, it should have also died when that little bit of lore also died - just like the racial restrictions on who could be a druid (humans, half-elves, and halflings) also died.
1st Edition's focus on class balance ranked somewhere below avoiding racial tropes so I also doubt that this was about anything other than giving the class some "nature" flavor. My money is on One DnD ending this or at least bringing back a mechanic for when it is violated (like there used to be).
My plate armor is made of bone because I say so and the item description doesn't say what it is made out of.
Did the bone pieces grow into the shapes of the plates of the armor? Were the bone pieces cut into to bring them into the plate armour shapes? Is the bone magically strong or is there another reason why (even in it's uncustomized form) the bone has strength equivalent to the quality metals used for plate armor?
Otherwise, plate: "Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. ..."
interesting. that entire first sentence was not there yesterday.
17 pages now?YEEESH put bluntly - if your playing in my world you will abide by my interpretation, if I’m playing in your world I’ll abide by yours.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It was not where? The sentence has been in the Player's Handbook from the beginning.
The only problem with that is DNDBeyond gives the 'generic' interpretation of "Plate" not allowing it to be changed, but it can be. You can have something with the same AC as Plate, but not made out of interlocking metal plates - but want to homebrew something like this bone 'plate' - it can very easily be made out of bone, reinforced strong enough to make it the same AC as Plate, the only other way is to add say 'leather' armor and bump up the AC bonus or something, but then that says it is leather. Bone studded leather works, and adding 'magic +
to ac.
Just because the wording isn't allowed to be changed doesn't change the fact that Dungeon and Dragons is a fantasy world, where someone can make this cool armor out of bones - and it is 100% allowed (per DM's ruling) so the 'nit picky' of 'interlocking metal' is just that, and luckily not a DM I play for.
DnDBeyond doesn't care. DnDBeyond does not restrict druids from wearing plate.
Make ya wonder, right? ;)
Yeah, but I was specifically speaking on the 'plate mail' being made with bones instead - but yeah I wear what I want to wear and every DM I have had is fine, only one was a little pushing back of me wearing a breastplate, but then I just said it wasn't made of metal? and he said yeah that makes sense hahah