Tasha's made it so you could rebuild any race to be anything virtually anything you want, breaking world lore that has been around for decades...
But tree huggers better not be caught with a metal shield, or what?
Guess what happens when you equip half plate in DDB? Your AC goes up and you get disadvantage on stealth. Nothing else.
As long as your DM is ok with it....
Edit: it is ironic to me that in this thread, where RAW couldn't be more clear ("druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal") you argue that the player can take it into their own hands outside of that text, whereas in the thread where the RAW isn't clear, you argue it is up to the DM.
I don't see why a dwarf, who grew up in the mines and manufactories of their clan, would suddenly consider metal armour to be "wrong". They might avoid buying off-the-shelf armour, especially something like chain mail or half plate that is quite processed, but I can't see a Dwarven druid shunning an iron breastplate they they forged themselves, especially if they forged it incorporating Druidic rituals.
If those poncy Fae-touched Elves are scared of a little bit of iron, that's a them problem, but iron is in the very bones of the earth, there's not much more natural than that.
Tasha's made it so you could rebuild any race to be anything virtually anything you want, breaking world lore that has been around for decades...
But tree huggers better not be caught with a metal shield, or what?
Guess what happens when you equip half plate in DDB? Your AC goes up and you get disadvantage on stealth. Nothing else.
As long as your DM is ok with it....
Edit: it is ironic to me that in this thread, where RAW couldn't be more clear ("druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal") you argue that the player can take it into their own hands outside of that text, whereas in the thread where the RAW isn't clear, you argue it is up to the DM.
No, I argue that absent a mechanic, a consequence for wearing armor, like there explicitly was in every prior edition, that this is nothing more that fluff. Every single other class has a mechanic for what happens when you wear armor for which you are not proficient.
I have no idea what other thread you are refrencing.
I don't see why a dwarf, who grew up in the mines and manufactories of their clan, would suddenly consider metal armour to be "wrong". They might avoid buying off-the-shelf armour, especially something like chain mail or half plate that is quite processed, but I can't see a Dwarven druid shunning an iron breastplate they they forged themselves, especially if they forged it incorporating Druidic rituals.
If those poncy Fae-touched Elves are scared of a little bit of iron, that's a them problem, but iron is in the very bones of the earth, there's not much more natural than that.
You could argue that it is even more convoluted that there is no prohibition on wearing the processed skins of butchered mammals but melting and hammering some rocks is the ultimate class sin.
My personal favorite ia that I can slash my enemies with my metal scimitar but I can't defend myself with a metal shield.
I could see this if there was at least SOME 5e common lore/diety that justifies such logical gymnastics but there isn't. Even back to at least 3.0 days Druids that followed Melikki were expressly allowed (RAW) to use metal. Where is anything like that today?
It is frankly idiotic. I would accept it at least if there was a RAW mechanic for what happens when you violate your tenets but it is clear that the authors never intended there to be an answer to, "what if." They certainly have had more than enough opportunities to clarify.
Whether you use or like this particular limitation, the argument that "it doesn't give a penalty" is an abomination to rules understanding.
There is no penalty listed for all sorts of things the rules don't allow you to do. There is no penalty listed for taking extra actions (beyond what is provided to your character) on your turn.
Whether you use or like this particular limitation, the argument that "it doesn't give a penalty" is an abomination to rules understanding.
There is no penalty listed for all sorts of things the rules don't allow you to do. There is no penalty listed for taking extra actions (beyond what is provided to your character) on your turn.
There is no mechanic for taking extra actions. There IS a mechanic for putting on armor.
I don't see why a dwarf, who grew up in the mines and manufactories of their clan, would suddenly consider metal armour to be "wrong". They might avoid buying off-the-shelf armour, especially something like chain mail or half plate that is quite processed, but I can't see a Dwarven druid shunning an iron breastplate they they forged themselves, especially if they forged it incorporating Druidic rituals.
If those poncy Fae-touched Elves are scared of a little bit of iron, that's a them problem, but iron is in the very bones of the earth, there's not much more natural than that.
You could argue that it is even more convoluted that there is no prohibition on wearing the processed skins of butchered mammals but melting and hammering some rocks is the ultimate class sin.
My personal favorite ia that I can slash my enemies with my metal scimitar but I can't defend myself with a metal shield.
I could see this if there was at least SOME 5e common lore/diety that justifies such logical gymnastics but there isn't. Even back to at least 3.0 days Druids that followed Melikki were expressly allowed (RAW) to use metal. Where is anything like that today?
It is frankly idiotic. I would accept it at least if there was a RAW mechanic for what happens when you violate your tenets but it is clear that the authors never intended there to be an answer to, "what if." They certainly have had more than enough opportunities to clarify.
It's not that they never intended there to be an answer to what if. Your interpretting this wrong. What has actually happened is that for the sake of opening things up on a general level they've actually taken the answer to "what if" away from us entirely. It's an answer that used to exist and was in all previous editions to this one. As a little side note. Scimitar's weren't actually always part of their class list for usability. The sicle however was. But there was also non-metal explanations of things like the holiness of silver and making their sicles purposely from that metal as part of the once answer to that question as well.
Earlier versions of warforged could wear/ be made of heavy armor and still qualify as druids. Would take a creative backstory though.
They didn't wear/"be made of" heavy armor. They couldnt' actually wear armor. But their construction was such that they could approximate the physical defenses of heavy armor. Which is subtle but important difference.
Earlier versions of warforged could wear/ be made of heavy armor and still qualify as druids. Would take a creative backstory though.
They didn't wear/"be made of" heavy armor. They couldnt' actually wear armor. But their construction was such that they could approximate the physical defenses of heavy armor. Which is subtle but important difference.
How is "be made of" not functionally the same thing as "approximate the physical defenses of ". . . ?
I agree that it is RAW that druids don't want to wear metal armour because of some beliefs. I also agree that it's easy to make it so that your druid can find non-metal alternatives for said pieces of armour, easy solution there to be honest, no need for discussion.
From a mechanical point of view I think it's stupid though. Why give someone med. armour proficiency if you're going to make it so difficult for them to actually get some other than hide. Mehcanically it makes no sense, clerics are also full casters with med armour access, so that's not the issue here, especially since there is no longer a consequence to actually wearing said metal armour or shields.
The fact that they can use metal weapons makes even less sense. Can't carry it, but I can use it to clobber a goblin to death. Whut? Really want to know which archdruid was so of his rockers that he decided on that being ok.
It's outdated fluff that is in need of an update to A) make it relevant, B) Provide alternatives or C) be removed from the game alltogether.
Earlier versions of warforged could wear/ be made of heavy armor and still qualify as druids. Would take a creative backstory though.
They didn't wear/"be made of" heavy armor. They couldnt' actually wear armor. But their construction was such that they could approximate the physical defenses of heavy armor. Which is subtle but important difference.
How is "be made of" not functionally the same thing as "approximate the physical defenses of ". . . ?
The difference is that while something can aproximate the statistics of another thing it is fundamentally different. Either in composition, the ability to alter it or copy the statistics of other things (like the old War Forged Did) or the fundamental difference in that what the War Forged actually are now is actually being made partly of the armor they work into themselves when they spend an hour of time but also pushes them right back into the basic tried and true AC dependant purely upon your physical armor and not alternate ability allowing for a different calculation style that the old ability had which has lost a lot of individual flavor potential in descriptive narrative of just how that defensiveness is achieved. Also War Forged didn't require to be made of metal in their older versions but could be made of things like Stone instead. Now it flat out says that your a mix of metals and living materials.
For example. One of my UA Warforged that was magically inclined actually made the sense of that AC far more through magical deflection of attacks (like mage armor or the shield spell in a way) for it's flavor of using that much of it's defensive ability over actually becoming a daunting force of heavy steal much like incorporating a full suit of platemail would force it to be by necessity. A Fellow War Forged in another game actually portrayed his version of that power as something more akin to being like Edward Elric in that everything shifted outward more into a Hollow Armor or Golem Shape to be that heavily protected instead. Something that is much easier for him to shift over to the published way that War Forged Deal with their AC now.
I somewhat recently made a warforged druid who, though he felt disconnected from many of the living things in nature, nonetheless became a druid and followed the circle of the stars as, born or constructed, we all see the same stars, and the all stars see us as the same. It would then be perfectly in character for him to wear metal armor, as those parts of being a druid are less meaningful to him. So while most druids would, simply by tradition, not wear metal armor, they are perfectly capable of saying "No" to tradition. They'd just need to have a lore justification for it, which could be something like "I think it's nonsensical that we blindly follow tradition to the point of not even asking 'why can I kill with a metal blade, yet not protect with a metal shield?'" or "To protect oneself with the skin of another being is sinful. We should kill no more beasts than we have to, and wearing metal armor harms less than wearing leather armor." Or maybe druids in your setting just don't have the taboo. It could be any of a million things.
Your making a paradox of thinking with your "Using the skin of another being is sinful" when you combine it with things like "Use all parts of nature and the animals to honor their spirits" and the fact that most living beings actually need things like clothes to help protect them from the environment or various types of predators and other such stuff like that. So you have to solve more than just the metal issue if your going to complain about wearing the skins of another being for your protection. Specially when you can easily say that your honoring the creature by allowing it to protect you from harm and the elements by using it's skin rather than letting it go to waste. Which is a common philosophy of things like druids.
Also there are plenty of druids that never actually use a metal weapon either. It's just not their most common means of defense in most builds even if it is allowed and as I said previously it wasn't even always allowed either. So it is actually more logical in some ways to turn your justification on it's head that "if you can't defend yourself with a Metal Shield then why should you be allowed to attack another being with a metal weapon?" And thus actually bar the couple of weapon on the list that are primarily metal instead since it's simpler to just get rid of something your not going to be using much anyway rather than trying to use it to justify using something else.
Going along that, of the list of druid weapons Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, slings, and spears are all stoneage weapons(a javelin is essentially a specialized spear, right?). Sickle like tools have certainly been made of stone, but is one of the few metal tools traditionally associated with druids. Scimitars are the one that stands out as an odd one to me.
Ok so you have a dwarven Forge Cleric who while adventuring finds his calling is more of cleansing the world with fire and goes into a wildfire druid. He would not give up the metal armor if you consider his nature aspect is earth and fire. Metal is from the earth. The story works for the character as well as game play. No matter how you argue it "Can't is not the same as won't." The won't is STORY line based. Everyone is mentioning that in earlier versions of this and that. What happened to the mage/wizard? They could not wear metal since it INTERFERED with their magic. They no longer have this limitation. The earlier version defense does not work. It is not the same game. RAW is won't, if the story works for the change then so what. If it was can't it would say so!
Ok so you have a dwarven Forge Cleric who while adventuring finds his calling is more of cleansing the world with fire and goes into a wildfire druid. He would not give up the metal armor if you consider his nature aspect is earth and fire. Metal is from the earth. The story works for the character as well as game play. No matter how you argue it "Can't is not the same as won't." The won't is STORY line based. Everyone is mentioning that in earlier versions of this and that. What happened to the mage/wizard? They could not wear metal since it INTERFERED with their magic. They no longer have this limitation. The earlier version defense does not work. It is not the same game. RAW is won't, if the story works for the change then so what. If it was can't it would say so!
metal did not in any way interfere with the magic of mages and wizards. The bulkiness of the armor that they also were not naturally familiar with, no matter what it was made out of, actually interfered with their ability to make the proper gestures to cast to make spells. This is a very big difference and there were enchantments and other special properties of certain magical items that actually lessened or resolved the issue of the bulkiness of the armor getting in the way and thus reduced or eliminated the spell failure possibility. The base concept of that still exists to some extent in 5e due to the fact that Mages/Wizards still do not naturally have the proper skill to wear armor which does cause them to suffer certain drawbacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As long as your DM is ok with it....
Edit: it is ironic to me that in this thread, where RAW couldn't be more clear ("druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal") you argue that the player can take it into their own hands outside of that text, whereas in the thread where the RAW isn't clear, you argue it is up to the DM.
I don't see why a dwarf, who grew up in the mines and manufactories of their clan, would suddenly consider metal armour to be "wrong". They might avoid buying off-the-shelf armour, especially something like chain mail or half plate that is quite processed, but I can't see a Dwarven druid shunning an iron breastplate they they forged themselves, especially if they forged it incorporating Druidic rituals.
If those poncy Fae-touched Elves are scared of a little bit of iron, that's a them problem, but iron is in the very bones of the earth, there's not much more natural than that.
No, I argue that absent a mechanic, a consequence for wearing armor, like there explicitly was in every prior edition, that this is nothing more that fluff. Every single other class has a mechanic for what happens when you wear armor for which you are not proficient.
I have no idea what other thread you are refrencing.
You could argue that it is even more convoluted that there is no prohibition on wearing the processed skins of butchered mammals but melting and hammering some rocks is the ultimate class sin.
My personal favorite ia that I can slash my enemies with my metal scimitar but I can't defend myself with a metal shield.
I could see this if there was at least SOME 5e common lore/diety that justifies such logical gymnastics but there isn't. Even back to at least 3.0 days Druids that followed Melikki were expressly allowed (RAW) to use metal. Where is anything like that today?
It is frankly idiotic. I would accept it at least if there was a RAW mechanic for what happens when you violate your tenets but it is clear that the authors never intended there to be an answer to, "what if." They certainly have had more than enough opportunities to clarify.
Whether you use or like this particular limitation, the argument that "it doesn't give a penalty" is an abomination to rules understanding.
There is no penalty listed for all sorts of things the rules don't allow you to do. There is no penalty listed for taking extra actions (beyond what is provided to your character) on your turn.
For the same reasons they might suddenly consider meat-eating or smoking or drinking or something else to be wrong.
There is no mechanic for taking extra actions. There IS a mechanic for putting on armor.
What you are saying is that there is a mechanic allowing something that the game says explicitly a druid will not do. It is a bad argument.
Sure there’s a rule that says a PC only gets one action, but there’s no penalty for taking more.
A vegetarian, non-drinking, non-smoking dwarf?! They may as well shave their beard off and stars calling themselves a Halfling!
It's not that they never intended there to be an answer to what if. Your interpretting this wrong. What has actually happened is that for the sake of opening things up on a general level they've actually taken the answer to "what if" away from us entirely. It's an answer that used to exist and was in all previous editions to this one. As a little side note. Scimitar's weren't actually always part of their class list for usability. The sicle however was. But there was also non-metal explanations of things like the holiness of silver and making their sicles purposely from that metal as part of the once answer to that question as well.
Earlier versions of warforged could wear/ be made of heavy armor and still qualify as druids. Would take a creative backstory though.
They didn't wear/"be made of" heavy armor. They couldnt' actually wear armor. But their construction was such that they could approximate the physical defenses of heavy armor. Which is subtle but important difference.
How is "be made of" not functionally the same thing as "approximate the physical defenses of ". . . ?
I agree that it is RAW that druids don't want to wear metal armour because of some beliefs. I also agree that it's easy to make it so that your druid can find non-metal alternatives for said pieces of armour, easy solution there to be honest, no need for discussion.
From a mechanical point of view I think it's stupid though. Why give someone med. armour proficiency if you're going to make it so difficult for them to actually get some other than hide. Mehcanically it makes no sense, clerics are also full casters with med armour access, so that's not the issue here, especially since there is no longer a consequence to actually wearing said metal armour or shields.
The fact that they can use metal weapons makes even less sense. Can't carry it, but I can use it to clobber a goblin to death. Whut? Really want to know which archdruid was so of his rockers that he decided on that being ok.
It's outdated fluff that is in need of an update to A) make it relevant, B) Provide alternatives or C) be removed from the game alltogether.
The difference is that while something can aproximate the statistics of another thing it is fundamentally different. Either in composition, the ability to alter it or copy the statistics of other things (like the old War Forged Did) or the fundamental difference in that what the War Forged actually are now is actually being made partly of the armor they work into themselves when they spend an hour of time but also pushes them right back into the basic tried and true AC dependant purely upon your physical armor and not alternate ability allowing for a different calculation style that the old ability had which has lost a lot of individual flavor potential in descriptive narrative of just how that defensiveness is achieved. Also War Forged didn't require to be made of metal in their older versions but could be made of things like Stone instead. Now it flat out says that your a mix of metals and living materials.
For example. One of my UA Warforged that was magically inclined actually made the sense of that AC far more through magical deflection of attacks (like mage armor or the shield spell in a way) for it's flavor of using that much of it's defensive ability over actually becoming a daunting force of heavy steal much like incorporating a full suit of platemail would force it to be by necessity. A Fellow War Forged in another game actually portrayed his version of that power as something more akin to being like Edward Elric in that everything shifted outward more into a Hollow Armor or Golem Shape to be that heavily protected instead. Something that is much easier for him to shift over to the published way that War Forged Deal with their AC now.
I somewhat recently made a warforged druid who, though he felt disconnected from many of the living things in nature, nonetheless became a druid and followed the circle of the stars as, born or constructed, we all see the same stars, and the all stars see us as the same. It would then be perfectly in character for him to wear metal armor, as those parts of being a druid are less meaningful to him. So while most druids would, simply by tradition, not wear metal armor, they are perfectly capable of saying "No" to tradition. They'd just need to have a lore justification for it, which could be something like "I think it's nonsensical that we blindly follow tradition to the point of not even asking 'why can I kill with a metal blade, yet not protect with a metal shield?'" or "To protect oneself with the skin of another being is sinful. We should kill no more beasts than we have to, and wearing metal armor harms less than wearing leather armor." Or maybe druids in your setting just don't have the taboo. It could be any of a million things.
Your making a paradox of thinking with your "Using the skin of another being is sinful" when you combine it with things like "Use all parts of nature and the animals to honor their spirits" and the fact that most living beings actually need things like clothes to help protect them from the environment or various types of predators and other such stuff like that. So you have to solve more than just the metal issue if your going to complain about wearing the skins of another being for your protection. Specially when you can easily say that your honoring the creature by allowing it to protect you from harm and the elements by using it's skin rather than letting it go to waste. Which is a common philosophy of things like druids.
Also there are plenty of druids that never actually use a metal weapon either. It's just not their most common means of defense in most builds even if it is allowed and as I said previously it wasn't even always allowed either. So it is actually more logical in some ways to turn your justification on it's head that "if you can't defend yourself with a Metal Shield then why should you be allowed to attack another being with a metal weapon?" And thus actually bar the couple of weapon on the list that are primarily metal instead since it's simpler to just get rid of something your not going to be using much anyway rather than trying to use it to justify using something else.
Going along that, of the list of druid weapons Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, slings, and spears are all stoneage weapons(a javelin is essentially a specialized spear, right?). Sickle like tools have certainly been made of stone, but is one of the few metal tools traditionally associated with druids. Scimitars are the one that stands out as an odd one to me.
Ok so you have a dwarven Forge Cleric who while adventuring finds his calling is more of cleansing the world with fire and goes into a wildfire druid. He would not give up the metal armor if you consider his nature aspect is earth and fire. Metal is from the earth. The story works for the character as well as game play. No matter how you argue it "Can't is not the same as won't." The won't is STORY line based.
Everyone is mentioning that in earlier versions of this and that. What happened to the mage/wizard? They could not wear metal since it INTERFERED with their magic. They no longer have this limitation. The earlier version defense does not work. It is not the same game. RAW is won't, if the story works for the change then so what. If it was can't it would say so!
metal did not in any way interfere with the magic of mages and wizards. The bulkiness of the armor that they also were not naturally familiar with, no matter what it was made out of, actually interfered with their ability to make the proper gestures to cast to make spells. This is a very big difference and there were enchantments and other special properties of certain magical items that actually lessened or resolved the issue of the bulkiness of the armor getting in the way and thus reduced or eliminated the spell failure possibility. The base concept of that still exists to some extent in 5e due to the fact that Mages/Wizards still do not naturally have the proper skill to wear armor which does cause them to suffer certain drawbacks.