It's a goofy, ancient rule that exists for legacy reasons (see: scimitar proficiency) and doesn't really do much other than limit roleplay options.
Pretty meh overall.
I agree. Just as clerics have varied religions, 5E should have embraced druids having varied beliefs about nature. Most dwarven cultures would stare in astonishment at the notion that metal isn't part of nature; perhaps mountain dwarf druids are notorious for instead having dietary restrictions and will only eat food that was prepared underground. Maybe lightfoot halfling druids are *serious* about refusing to don footwear. And so on. One belief shared by all druids is extremely absurd and limiting.
Clerics, paladins, and warlocks have individual relationships with their belief systems and spiritual relationships, and rangers handle nature magic just fine without any universal beliefs. Why do druids have to share?
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Medium armor is medium armor. Druids can wear medium armor, but that medium armor will not be made of metal. They have their reasons, and that's fine. If you want to play a druid, abide by this. But this does not mean a druid cannot acquire armor made from exotic materials. In Storm King's Thunder, there are stone breastplates (worth 250 gp) that druids could wear. In DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom, there's a suit of Half Plate of Poison Resistance made from petrified mushrooms. Heck, Hoard of the Dragon Queen has a suit of White Dragon Scale Mail on an NPC the party could potentially fight, kill, and loot.
And while we don't know how hot Heat Metal can get, it's not hot enough to melt iron or forge steel. The iron needs to be heated to 1,700 degrees Celcius (3,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Lava, which does anywhere from 10d10 to 18d10 fire damage in the DMG, depending on whether you're wading or fully submerged, only gets to about 1,250 degrees Celcius. And Heat Metal just can't get anywhere near that high. The best it can manage is 9d8 fire damage, and that's with a 9th-level spell slot when you could be warping reality, instead.
My point is that this is a bit of lore that I think should be taken out of the game because it logically doesn't make that much sense, and all it does is make it harder for a person playing a druid to obtain an AC that is actually worth anything. This is based on a Druidic Circle's belief system, so it is a piece of lore, which is totally malleable given the entire nature of the game. Unless you happen to follow every bit of the flavor text that comes in every single book.
And that is a limit you choose to put on the spell based off of relative damage. I choose to not limit the spell based on that.
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Sure, you heat the iron to temperatures that don't naturally occur, but it's hardly an unnatural process to heat it up. Everything involved in the process is natural. How is it any different than treating animal skins, a process that wouldn't just happen on its own?
The fact that we are even having this specific discussion shows that it is entirely plausible that there would be Druidic Circles that would not view metal as taboo. Particularly Dwarves, who base their entire society on stone and metal work. They would likely see the process of smelting the same as tanning leather. Both processes involve doing things that wouldn't just happen on their own in nature.
My point isn't that there aren't options out there. My point is that this is a uselessly limiting bit of lore that has been touted as a rule when it simply isn't. It's ok to disregard it because it will literally have zero impact on gameplay, and it provides the player an opportunity to come up with their own Druidic tenants. Maybe their druid doesn't think killing animals is ok, no matter how dedicated to using every part of the animal. They might view every animal as sacred, so they would view leather and bone as abhorrent. Long story short- let the player decide.
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Sure, you heat the iron to temperatures that don't naturally occur, but it's hardly an unnatural process to heat it up. Everything involved in the process is natural. How is it any different than treating animal skins, a process that wouldn't just happen on its own?
The fact that we are even having this specific discussion shows that it is entirely plausible that there would be Druidic Circles that would not view metal as taboo. Particularly Dwarves, who base their entire society on stone and metal work. They would likely see the process of smelting the same as tanning leather. Both processes involve doing things that wouldn't just happen on their own in nature.
My point isn't that there aren't options out there. My point is that this is a uselessly limiting bit of lore that has been touted as a rule when it simply isn't. It's ok to disregard it because it will literally have zero impact on gameplay, and it provides the player an opportunity to come up with their own Druidic tenants. Maybe their druid doesn't think killing animals is ok, no matter how dedicated to using every part of the animal. They might view every animal as sacred, so they would view leather and bone as abhorrent. Long story short- let the player decide.
Dwarves, canonically, have suits of alchemically-treated stone used to make plate armor.
You can say it's a useless restriction, but there are many who disagree with you. Story isn't useless in a roleplaying game. Questing for special materials and/or a skilled smith to craft such armor is useful. It can even be fun. Futher more, druids are full spellcasters. Just being able to use any armor is a boon. They have better innate defenses than bards, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. Some of those can "keep up" with a subclass, and only the cleric can do better.
And heating iron up past temperatures which can occur in nature is the definition of unnatural. I think you're letting your inner optimizer drive when they should take a back seat. It's leading you to myopic views and pointless arguing.
EDIT: I don't know why you felt compelled to quote me twice, but it's annoying. Still, I'll try.
You choose not to limit the spell as I described. That's your right, if you're the DM, but then you need to keep things consistent. At what point can it begin to melt armor and weapons? Does that ruin the object that is being heated? Does prohibiting druids from wearing metal armor protect them from spells like Heat Metal and Shocking Grasp? Could that be considered its own advantage?
Personally, I find your idea of a druid that abhores animal violence utterly laughable. Druids understand the natural world in a way most dont. Animals will prey on one another. Humanoids are no different. Now, if you want to have an evil PETA sect of druids then more power to you. You can set up the lore for your home game. But you don't get to bring that into someone elses.
Lore is malleable up to a point. It defines the world we play in, and it does so in a way no amount of dice rolling or numbers on a character sheet do. Those are just an engine for conflict resolution. You can construct your own lore for your own games, but that doesn't give you the right to complain about what's in the PHB.
Every class has a story behind it. Some lean more heavily into that then others. Does the druid's story really offend you so? Is a starting AC of 15 really worthless?
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Where does the lime come from if not from mining? Most medium leather armor would be hardened leather, which involves boiling it in oil. That doesn't occur naturally. It just seems like a really arbitrary line to draw and dictate to an entire class. Paladins do not have to be lawful, but it would make a lot more sense if they were.
Clerics are also full casters and get access to medium armor. Most even get access to heavy armor, so the argument that a druid getting metal medium armor is too much for a full caster doesn't really add up.
I'm not even telling you that you have to allow it. I'm not forcing anything on you. What I'm arguing for is allowing DMs to feel free to open up roleplaying opportunities by just removing that one thing. That way it can easily be a table by table basis rather than this big pointless argument.
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Where does the lime come from if not from mining? Most medium leather armor would be hardened leather, which involves boiling it in oil. That doesn't occur naturally. It just seems like a really arbitrary line to draw and dictate to an entire class. Paladins do not have to be lawful, but it would make a lot more sense if they were.
Clerics are also full casters and get access to medium armor. Most even get access to heavy armor, so the argument that a druid getting metal medium armor is too much for a full caster doesn't really add up.
That's a good question. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, so it doesn't need to be mined. I can drive for 60-90 minutes and find limestone outcroppings, above the soil level, in the mountains. That said, there are limestone quarries, and limestone has been mined for a variety of purposes. It's incredibly versatile and has been used to make chalk, concrete, and more. There's even agricultural lime.
And I think you're confusing medium leather armor with light leather armor. What you're referring to with hardened leather sounds like cuir boilli; which I would classify as light because Hide has its own description. And it's a bit of a misnomer. While there are a number of surviving recipes, they don't all agree on the process used to craft it. Boiling was fairly rare, though the tanning process, in general, did call for submerging the leather in water for anywhere from 6 hours to 2 days. This was done to make it more supple so it could be fitted around a mold; be it a mannequin for armor or a wooden chest to then be decorated. And the oil used wasn't petroleum; it was vegetable oil. That's the oil used to fuel the various lanterns in the PHB.
Even hardened leather is a bit anachronistic. It was never that hard, and it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as a gambeson. Not only did they offer good protection, and weren't nearly as restrictive as the PHB would have you believe, but it's what you would wear underneath heavier armor like Chain Mail or Plate. I mean, Studded Leather is probably supposed to be brigandine, and holy crap was that good armor. My point is, don't confuse the fantasy being sold for anything realistic. The game just isn't designed for it.
And I still think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, that is a pun. And, yes, it was intended.
You guys are so hung up on making druids wear metal armor that you aren't bothering to ask why it was written that way. You're angry, confused, or something else, and you're letting it cloud your judgment. And, sorry not sorry, but if you don't care about the story being told then you aren't playing a role-playing game. Because everything you read in one of these books was written with an idea in mind; something to facilitate a story. And you can change whatever you want for your home games. Nobody here or at WotC is going to break into your home and mess up your stuff. But every change affects the game, and not just mechanically. It says something about the world you and your players will...inhabit...as you play.
The story of the druid revolves around the idea of balance: balance between the four elements of nature (five, if you want to get alchemical), and balance between civilization and the wilds. A druid might be okay with steel weapons and not steel armor because this is symbolic of that balance. They won't clothe themselves in the trappings of civilization, in this case, steel armor, because doing so means embracing one side fully. And they cannot allow that. Their creed forbids it. They have a larger role to play. But druids are not monolithic, and just like there are multiple Mandalorian creeds there are different druid circles. Back in 3.X, druids of Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) had no prohibition on wearing metal armor. I don't know why, but they didn't.
Go back far enough and the only way to become an archdruid was to kill another archdruid in single combat.
Remember, druids don't lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to. When you agree to play a druid, you are validating that choice. No one else is limiting your options. Nobody is forcing you to not wear metal armor. It's something you agree to ahead of time. It's informed consent.
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
Where does the lime come from if not from mining? Most medium leather armor would be hardened leather, which involves boiling it in oil. That doesn't occur naturally. It just seems like a really arbitrary line to draw and dictate to an entire class. Paladins do not have to be lawful, but it would make a lot more sense if they were.
Clerics are also full casters and get access to medium armor. Most even get access to heavy armor, so the argument that a druid getting metal medium armor is too much for a full caster doesn't really add up.
but oil does occur natrually its just really dead only plants
I'm not going to lie, I'm kinda done with this. You are failing to really see the point, and I'm not sure how else to make my point.
Your point is flawed. Your starting Your starting with the Mechanical advantage that you want. Which is AC. Then you are working backwards and calling anything that contradicts that pointless and useless.
Your Bringing up details that don't fit. Like trying to suggest that the only real oil is petrollium oil. While it rules our lives now in the modern age. It was almost heard of pre-industrial age. It was a rare find. most oils used before that point were not petrollium based. They were largely either based on things like whale fat or what could be extracted from plant products as they were using up as much of the plant as they could in as many ways as they could. So there is very little oil of that kind in a setting such as that normally associated with D&D. And of what there is not a lot of use for it besides "crackpot inventors" and esoteric uses that might relate to magic in some way.
Your not taking any of this and saying how can I work with it. Your only saying "how can I get rid of this because it's in my way." And on the Druid of all things. The one where most people advocate the Moon Druid over all most of the time and shape changing regularly even outside of them. Where that AC advantage your clambering to create is kind of pointless because your regularly going to be in forms where that Armor your wearing means absolutely nothing. All because you don't like a non-mechanical rule about a certain group of like minded individuals that historically (and in a couple settings i believe still do) have a region/world wide hierarchy to them.
And here's the thing. That mechanical advantage that has you railing so hard against a non-mechanical rule about a certain given society and way of doing things can be attained or worked around easily by other non-mechanical means very easily through all kinds of creativity that already exists in the system. Bullet Armor for example can be turned into things as hard as platemail and isn't made with metal AND it's favored and worn by Dwarves, They are in fact the primary group to wear such things.
But even if we ignore all the flavor ways to get around it literally baked into the game where your not bothering to look and would just rather throw it out because it's getting in your way. That 1 to 2 points of AC you get for throwing it out much of the time. Which Mechanically means little, It might help you some at tier 1 and 2, Assuming your not shape changing all the time and making it pointless. But if your not doing that then your most likely at ranges where your less targeted by enemies in general so it's being less challenged which means your taking less hits purely from positioning to make that couple points of AC vitally important.
The very nature of the way they work as spellcasters is to an extent a damage mitigation technique as far as AC is concerned Thanks to issues like cover, even soft cover from living people, your positioning farther away from the "front line" of battle in most situations. And potentially things like Spell Sniper which can massively boost what are often already pretty good ranges. Many Spell Casters if they can meet your ranges also aren't going to be targetting your AC so that's another mitigation because it's useless in that regard.
And yes. I'm aware that people can bring up spores and go "Spores is meant to be used in Melee because of it's powers and they need that AC!" But it also comes with Abilities that do things like Give the Druid anywhere between 8 and 80 Temporary hitpoints. And Shores up what is arguably the druids weakest damage. that of it's melee damage. And as it levels up it against additional range suggesting that it's actually meant to be drift somewhere between close range and midrange more than being hard on the front line of engagement. This is partly because one of it's bread and butter moves is actually not a melee range reaction attack on another but a short range reaction attack on another person as well as the fact that it also has a power meant to create melee range meat shields to stand in front of it in the form of Fungal infestation. But on top of that it also has Blindness/Deafness as an always known spell. This debuff is a good decrease of offensive capability of your enemies for as long as it lasts with it's big downside being that it's a repeated constitution save so it may not affect or last long on some of the enemies you really want it to.
And that's not even getting into how Spores might be stronger than moon druid at things like Max level. But i'm not in the mood to give power gamers any more ideas if they haven't figured out the trick there already.
And yes. I'm aware that people can bring up spores and go "Spores is meant to be used in Melee because of it's powers and they need that AC!" But it also comes with Abilities that do things like Give the Druid anywhere between 8 and 80 Temporary hitpoints. And Shores up what is arguably the druids weakest damage. that of it's melee damage. And as it levels up it against additional range suggesting that it's actually meant to be drift somewhere between close range and midrange more than being hard on the front line of engagement. This is partly because one of it's bread and butter moves is actually not a melee range reaction attack on another but a short range reaction attack on another person as well as the fact that it also has a power meant to create melee range meat shields to stand in front of it in the form of Fungal infestation. But on top of that it also has Blindness/Deafness as an always known spell. This debuff is a good decrease of offensive capability of your enemies for as long as it lasts with it's big downside being that it's a repeated constitution save so it may not affect or last long on some of the enemies you really want it to.
And that's not even getting into how Spores might be stronger than moon druid at things like Max level. But i'm not in the mood to give power gamers any more ideas if they haven't figured out the trick there already.
Dude, you could have just stopped at them getting Chill Touch at 2nd-level. But I appreciate the thoroghness.
Also, why all this talk about lore (not that there's anything wrong with the lore) when we have this?
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
And yes. I'm aware that people can bring up spores and go "Spores is meant to be used in Melee because of it's powers and they need that AC!" But it also comes with Abilities that do things like Give the Druid anywhere between 8 and 80 Temporary hitpoints. And Shores up what is arguably the druids weakest damage. that of it's melee damage. And as it levels up it against additional range suggesting that it's actually meant to be drift somewhere between close range and midrange more than being hard on the front line of engagement. This is partly because one of it's bread and butter moves is actually not a melee range reaction attack on another but a short range reaction attack on another person as well as the fact that it also has a power meant to create melee range meat shields to stand in front of it in the form of Fungal infestation. But on top of that it also has Blindness/Deafness as an always known spell. This debuff is a good decrease of offensive capability of your enemies for as long as it lasts with it's big downside being that it's a repeated constitution save so it may not affect or last long on some of the enemies you really want it to.
And that's not even getting into how Spores might be stronger than moon druid at things like Max level. But i'm not in the mood to give power gamers any more ideas if they haven't figured out the trick there already.
Dude, you could have just stopped at them getting Chill Touch at 2nd-level. But I appreciate the thoroghness.
Also, why all this talk about lore (not that there's anything wrong with the lore) when we have this?
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
That looks like a hard and fast rule, to me.
Honestly I was a little rushed and forgot about chill touch. Though if I had remembered it I would have mentioned it but it's not what most people talk about when they talk about spores. They seem to focus most on using halo of spores and symbiotic entity so that's what I addressed most in my hurry.
I know that this is an old topic but there is an easy answer. Most druids shapeshift. Metal objects do not mold to a shapeshifting druid, not even a little. This flavor was created on the hopes that DMs would be flexible on non-metal armors fitting your beast form's body without too much work. I do believe the rule could be further simplified and then ruled as follows.
You cannot shapeshift while wearing metal armors. If you shapeshift and have metal armor put on you, and your wild form fades you will have to deal with the weight of that object when you revert. So armoring a large creature properly will have detriments to the humanoid form in the form of weight coming crashing down on it. [If the stats are much different strength wise.] Metal objects do not become part of your druid form and fall to the ground on shapeshifting. This includes metal weapons. Objects that contain metal but aren't entirely so may become part of your form at DM discretion.
They didn't want to write all of this probably because if you're a druid you understand that metal armor and shapeshifting is simply not gonna get along. In the case of the last situation they probably also don't want players asking, "Well since I have barbs of metal, does my animal form have barbs of metal?" They skipped all of the former explaining by just giving that hard and fast rule and instead writing around these obvious complications.
These issues can further extend to Starry Form as well as your armor not being made of a living fibre probably will not allow your body to fully display the constellation that you are using. At least hide is closer to skin and skin is already what you're flowing mana through. So I would argue it doesn't conduct mana well on top of it doesn't mold. You may not need mana to conduct well if you are casting through a spell focus, but I feel like it most inherently messes up the usage of Wild Shape and Starry Form quite easily.
When you wild shape, your armor and weapons don't offer any benefit anyway. It literally says that in the wild shape language.
Except that is only half the rule. Sure, "Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form[,]" but you can make use of any equipment your DM deems you able to: "You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size."
I don't really think Umbraloc was trying to describe rules, but rather their rationalization of them, so I don't really hold that against them. On the other hand, when you say what the wildshape language literally says, you should spend the time to get it right.
If you look at Wearing and Wielding (Magic) Items, "In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
There is nothing in that wording that restricts it to humanoid creatures -- there's a perfectly credible argument for a druid in magic armor who uses wild shape and doesn't choose to merge his armor is now wearing magic barding. The same mostly doesn't apply to weapons and shields due to lack of hands, though if you have an animated shield you can speak its command word before using wild shape (or in wild shape if your form lets you speak). So talk your DM into letting you have Ankheg Half-Plate +1 and at 6th level you can run around as an AC 16 Cave Bear or an AC 18 Giant Elk.
While we're at it, elementals do have hands, and have the ability to speak, so they can use most items (unless the item grants the ability to cast a spell -- wild shape doesn't let you cast spells regardless of where the spell comes from). The DM may not be convinced by the non-solid elementals wearing armor, and using weapons probably won't be as good as your natural attacks, but it's doable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree. Just as clerics have varied religions, 5E should have embraced druids having varied beliefs about nature. Most dwarven cultures would stare in astonishment at the notion that metal isn't part of nature; perhaps mountain dwarf druids are notorious for instead having dietary restrictions and will only eat food that was prepared underground. Maybe lightfoot halfling druids are *serious* about refusing to don footwear. And so on. One belief shared by all druids is extremely absurd and limiting.
Clerics, paladins, and warlocks have individual relationships with their belief systems and spiritual relationships, and rangers handle nature magic just fine without any universal beliefs. Why do druids have to share?
It's not that metal doesn't appear in nature. It does. But the process by which you tan leather is radically different than how steel is forged.
Leather is tanned by soaking it in water, removing the hair/fur, treating it with other animal parts (brains, intestine, lye), as well as mineral (lime) and plant components, and soaking in the sun. Se get the term "tanning" from tanin, which is found in the bark of some trees. It even can also be treated with beeswax to be made harder.
Forging steel requires heating the iron to temperatures which do not naturally occur, driving out the naturally-occurring impurities, and adding carbon. Armor made from "pure" iron might be okay, because those temperatures can be reached in nature, but it would be significantly weaker. And the earliest steelworks were in 1800 B.C.E., so any pseudo-medieval/early renaissance society is going to be advanced well beyond that.
Earlier editions, perhaps 3.X most notably, had special materials that equipment could be made from. Elves had glassteel. Druids could wear armor made from Ironwood. Heck, plain old bone was an option.
My point is that this is a bit of lore that I think should be taken out of the game because it logically doesn't make that much sense, and all it does is make it harder for a person playing a druid to obtain an AC that is actually worth anything. This is based on a Druidic Circle's belief system, so it is a piece of lore, which is totally malleable given the entire nature of the game. Unless you happen to follow every bit of the flavor text that comes in every single book.
And that is a limit you choose to put on the spell based off of relative damage. I choose to not limit the spell based on that.
Sure, you heat the iron to temperatures that don't naturally occur, but it's hardly an unnatural process to heat it up. Everything involved in the process is natural. How is it any different than treating animal skins, a process that wouldn't just happen on its own?
The fact that we are even having this specific discussion shows that it is entirely plausible that there would be Druidic Circles that would not view metal as taboo. Particularly Dwarves, who base their entire society on stone and metal work. They would likely see the process of smelting the same as tanning leather. Both processes involve doing things that wouldn't just happen on their own in nature.
My point isn't that there aren't options out there. My point is that this is a uselessly limiting bit of lore that has been touted as a rule when it simply isn't. It's ok to disregard it because it will literally have zero impact on gameplay, and it provides the player an opportunity to come up with their own Druidic tenants. Maybe their druid doesn't think killing animals is ok, no matter how dedicated to using every part of the animal. They might view every animal as sacred, so they would view leather and bone as abhorrent. Long story short- let the player decide.
I'm glad you're here to tell us what parts of the rulebooks are rules. Otherwise, we'd have to take the text at face value.
Dwarves, canonically, have suits of alchemically-treated stone used to make plate armor.
You can say it's a useless restriction, but there are many who disagree with you. Story isn't useless in a roleplaying game. Questing for special materials and/or a skilled smith to craft such armor is useful. It can even be fun. Futher more, druids are full spellcasters. Just being able to use any armor is a boon. They have better innate defenses than bards, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. Some of those can "keep up" with a subclass, and only the cleric can do better.
And heating iron up past temperatures which can occur in nature is the definition of unnatural. I think you're letting your inner optimizer drive when they should take a back seat. It's leading you to myopic views and pointless arguing.
EDIT: I don't know why you felt compelled to quote me twice, but it's annoying. Still, I'll try.
Let's talk about Heat Metal.
You choose not to limit the spell as I described. That's your right, if you're the DM, but then you need to keep things consistent. At what point can it begin to melt armor and weapons? Does that ruin the object that is being heated? Does prohibiting druids from wearing metal armor protect them from spells like Heat Metal and Shocking Grasp? Could that be considered its own advantage?
Personally, I find your idea of a druid that abhores animal violence utterly laughable. Druids understand the natural world in a way most dont. Animals will prey on one another. Humanoids are no different. Now, if you want to have an evil PETA sect of druids then more power to you. You can set up the lore for your home game. But you don't get to bring that into someone elses.
Lore is malleable up to a point. It defines the world we play in, and it does so in a way no amount of dice rolling or numbers on a character sheet do. Those are just an engine for conflict resolution. You can construct your own lore for your own games, but that doesn't give you the right to complain about what's in the PHB.
Every class has a story behind it. Some lean more heavily into that then others. Does the druid's story really offend you so? Is a starting AC of 15 really worthless?
Give us a break.
Where does the lime come from if not from mining? Most medium leather armor would be hardened leather, which involves boiling it in oil. That doesn't occur naturally. It just seems like a really arbitrary line to draw and dictate to an entire class. Paladins do not have to be lawful, but it would make a lot more sense if they were.
Clerics are also full casters and get access to medium armor. Most even get access to heavy armor, so the argument that a druid getting metal medium armor is too much for a full caster doesn't really add up.
I'm not even telling you that you have to allow it. I'm not forcing anything on you. What I'm arguing for is allowing DMs to feel free to open up roleplaying opportunities by just removing that one thing. That way it can easily be a table by table basis rather than this big pointless argument.
That's a good question. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, so it doesn't need to be mined. I can drive for 60-90 minutes and find limestone outcroppings, above the soil level, in the mountains. That said, there are limestone quarries, and limestone has been mined for a variety of purposes. It's incredibly versatile and has been used to make chalk, concrete, and more. There's even agricultural lime.
And I think you're confusing medium leather armor with light leather armor. What you're referring to with hardened leather sounds like cuir boilli; which I would classify as light because Hide has its own description. And it's a bit of a misnomer. While there are a number of surviving recipes, they don't all agree on the process used to craft it. Boiling was fairly rare, though the tanning process, in general, did call for submerging the leather in water for anywhere from 6 hours to 2 days. This was done to make it more supple so it could be fitted around a mold; be it a mannequin for armor or a wooden chest to then be decorated. And the oil used wasn't petroleum; it was vegetable oil. That's the oil used to fuel the various lanterns in the PHB.
Even hardened leather is a bit anachronistic. It was never that hard, and it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as a gambeson. Not only did they offer good protection, and weren't nearly as restrictive as the PHB would have you believe, but it's what you would wear underneath heavier armor like Chain Mail or Plate. I mean, Studded Leather is probably supposed to be brigandine, and holy crap was that good armor. My point is, don't confuse the fantasy being sold for anything realistic. The game just isn't designed for it.
And I still think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, that is a pun. And, yes, it was intended.
You guys are so hung up on making druids wear metal armor that you aren't bothering to ask why it was written that way. You're angry, confused, or something else, and you're letting it cloud your judgment. And, sorry not sorry, but if you don't care about the story being told then you aren't playing a role-playing game. Because everything you read in one of these books was written with an idea in mind; something to facilitate a story. And you can change whatever you want for your home games. Nobody here or at WotC is going to break into your home and mess up your stuff. But every change affects the game, and not just mechanically. It says something about the world you and your players will...inhabit...as you play.
The story of the druid revolves around the idea of balance: balance between the four elements of nature (five, if you want to get alchemical), and balance between civilization and the wilds. A druid might be okay with steel weapons and not steel armor because this is symbolic of that balance. They won't clothe themselves in the trappings of civilization, in this case, steel armor, because doing so means embracing one side fully. And they cannot allow that. Their creed forbids it. They have a larger role to play. But druids are not monolithic, and just like there are multiple Mandalorian creeds there are different druid circles. Back in 3.X, druids of Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) had no prohibition on wearing metal armor. I don't know why, but they didn't.
Go back far enough and the only way to become an archdruid was to kill another archdruid in single combat.
Remember, druids don't lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to. When you agree to play a druid, you are validating that choice. No one else is limiting your options. Nobody is forcing you to not wear metal armor. It's something you agree to ahead of time. It's informed consent.
Or you just ignore it like a lot of people do....
Either way is fine.
but oil does occur natrually its just really dead only plants
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
I'm not going to lie, I'm kinda done with this. You are failing to really see the point, and I'm not sure how else to make my point.
Your point is flawed. Your starting Your starting with the Mechanical advantage that you want. Which is AC. Then you are working backwards and calling anything that contradicts that pointless and useless.
Your Bringing up details that don't fit. Like trying to suggest that the only real oil is petrollium oil. While it rules our lives now in the modern age. It was almost heard of pre-industrial age. It was a rare find. most oils used before that point were not petrollium based. They were largely either based on things like whale fat or what could be extracted from plant products as they were using up as much of the plant as they could in as many ways as they could. So there is very little oil of that kind in a setting such as that normally associated with D&D. And of what there is not a lot of use for it besides "crackpot inventors" and esoteric uses that might relate to magic in some way.
Your not taking any of this and saying how can I work with it. Your only saying "how can I get rid of this because it's in my way." And on the Druid of all things. The one where most people advocate the Moon Druid over all most of the time and shape changing regularly even outside of them. Where that AC advantage your clambering to create is kind of pointless because your regularly going to be in forms where that Armor your wearing means absolutely nothing. All because you don't like a non-mechanical rule about a certain group of like minded individuals that historically (and in a couple settings i believe still do) have a region/world wide hierarchy to them.
And here's the thing. That mechanical advantage that has you railing so hard against a non-mechanical rule about a certain given society and way of doing things can be attained or worked around easily by other non-mechanical means very easily through all kinds of creativity that already exists in the system. Bullet Armor for example can be turned into things as hard as platemail and isn't made with metal AND it's favored and worn by Dwarves, They are in fact the primary group to wear such things.
But even if we ignore all the flavor ways to get around it literally baked into the game where your not bothering to look and would just rather throw it out because it's getting in your way. That 1 to 2 points of AC you get for throwing it out much of the time. Which Mechanically means little, It might help you some at tier 1 and 2, Assuming your not shape changing all the time and making it pointless. But if your not doing that then your most likely at ranges where your less targeted by enemies in general so it's being less challenged which means your taking less hits purely from positioning to make that couple points of AC vitally important.
The very nature of the way they work as spellcasters is to an extent a damage mitigation technique as far as AC is concerned Thanks to issues like cover, even soft cover from living people, your positioning farther away from the "front line" of battle in most situations. And potentially things like Spell Sniper which can massively boost what are often already pretty good ranges. Many Spell Casters if they can meet your ranges also aren't going to be targetting your AC so that's another mitigation because it's useless in that regard.
And yes. I'm aware that people can bring up spores and go "Spores is meant to be used in Melee because of it's powers and they need that AC!" But it also comes with Abilities that do things like Give the Druid anywhere between 8 and 80 Temporary hitpoints. And Shores up what is arguably the druids weakest damage. that of it's melee damage. And as it levels up it against additional range suggesting that it's actually meant to be drift somewhere between close range and midrange more than being hard on the front line of engagement. This is partly because one of it's bread and butter moves is actually not a melee range reaction attack on another but a short range reaction attack on another person as well as the fact that it also has a power meant to create melee range meat shields to stand in front of it in the form of Fungal infestation. But on top of that it also has Blindness/Deafness as an always known spell. This debuff is a good decrease of offensive capability of your enemies for as long as it lasts with it's big downside being that it's a repeated constitution save so it may not affect or last long on some of the enemies you really want it to.
And that's not even getting into how Spores might be stronger than moon druid at things like Max level. But i'm not in the mood to give power gamers any more ideas if they haven't figured out the trick there already.
Dude, you could have just stopped at them getting Chill Touch at 2nd-level. But I appreciate the thoroghness.
Also, why all this talk about lore (not that there's anything wrong with the lore) when we have this?
That looks like a hard and fast rule, to me.
Honestly I was a little rushed and forgot about chill touch. Though if I had remembered it I would have mentioned it but it's not what most people talk about when they talk about spores. They seem to focus most on using halo of spores and symbiotic entity so that's what I addressed most in my hurry.
I know that this is an old topic but there is an easy answer. Most druids shapeshift. Metal objects do not mold to a shapeshifting druid, not even a little. This flavor was created on the hopes that DMs would be flexible on non-metal armors fitting your beast form's body without too much work. I do believe the rule could be further simplified and then ruled as follows.
You cannot shapeshift while wearing metal armors.
If you shapeshift and have metal armor put on you, and your wild form fades you will have to deal with the weight of that object when you revert. So armoring a large creature properly will have detriments to the humanoid form in the form of weight coming crashing down on it. [If the stats are much different strength wise.]
Metal objects do not become part of your druid form and fall to the ground on shapeshifting. This includes metal weapons.
Objects that contain metal but aren't entirely so may become part of your form at DM discretion.
They didn't want to write all of this probably because if you're a druid you understand that metal armor and shapeshifting is simply not gonna get along. In the case of the last situation they probably also don't want players asking, "Well since I have barbs of metal, does my animal form have barbs of metal?" They skipped all of the former explaining by just giving that hard and fast rule and instead writing around these obvious complications.
These issues can further extend to Starry Form as well as your armor not being made of a living fibre probably will not allow your body to fully display the constellation that you are using. At least hide is closer to skin and skin is already what you're flowing mana through. So I would argue it doesn't conduct mana well on top of it doesn't mold. You may not need mana to conduct well if you are casting through a spell focus, but I feel like it most inherently messes up the usage of Wild Shape and Starry Form quite easily.
Metal weapons meld into your form just fine though...
When you wild shape, your armor and weapons don't offer any benefit anyway. It literally says that in the wild shape language.
Except that is only half the rule. Sure, "Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form[,]" but you can make use of any equipment your DM deems you able to: "You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size."
I don't really think Umbraloc was trying to describe rules, but rather their rationalization of them, so I don't really hold that against them. On the other hand, when you say what the wildshape language literally says, you should spend the time to get it right.
If you look at Wearing and Wielding (Magic) Items, "In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
There is nothing in that wording that restricts it to humanoid creatures -- there's a perfectly credible argument for a druid in magic armor who uses wild shape and doesn't choose to merge his armor is now wearing magic barding. The same mostly doesn't apply to weapons and shields due to lack of hands, though if you have an animated shield you can speak its command word before using wild shape (or in wild shape if your form lets you speak). So talk your DM into letting you have Ankheg Half-Plate +1 and at 6th level you can run around as an AC 16 Cave Bear or an AC 18 Giant Elk.
While we're at it, elementals do have hands, and have the ability to speak, so they can use most items (unless the item grants the ability to cast a spell -- wild shape doesn't let you cast spells regardless of where the spell comes from). The DM may not be convinced by the non-solid elementals wearing armor, and using weapons probably won't be as good as your natural attacks, but it's doable.