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.
Except for one problem. Barding is not Strictly armor. It's actually a seperated distinctive subclass of armor that is called out as unique basically with it's own rules and parts of the body that it covers that are not necessarily addressed even by magical armor.
Also...Some Elementals don't technically necessarily have hands. Of the 4 basic types of elementals if you actually read their descriptions. Only one of them is even described as having appendages of any kind at all. And only club like arms are described in that one which is the earth elemental. All the rest are described as a kind of force of nature type shape with a face such as wave or a tornado.
Other elemental forms are not naturally available to even moon Druids and even those basic forms are only available to moon druids in 5th edition.
Except for one problem. Barding is not Strictly armor. It's actually a seperated distinctive subclass of armor that is called out as unique basically with it's own rules and parts of the body that it covers that are not necessarily addressed even by magical armor.
I was using barding as a term for 'armor worn by beasts', not as a reference to the specific gear in the PHB.
Except for one problem. Barding is not Strictly armor. It's actually a seperated distinctive subclass of armor that is called out as unique basically with it's own rules and parts of the body that it covers that are not necessarily addressed even by magical armor.
I was using barding as a term for 'armor worn by beasts', not as a reference to the specific gear in the PHB.
you may have been. But that is still a distinction that does clearly exist in the game so should have consideration when it is brought up.
If the druid in my campaign (the yet-to-be-rich Kalvirix the Ice Cream Warrior) chose to snatch some metal armor for himself I would say that he gets lead poisoning and loses 1 hit point for every 10 minutes he wears it. He got around this with a homebrew background (that is incredibly unbalanced) which replaces any equipment reminiscent of normalcy from his background with a WOODEN ice cream truck that transforms into a @$*#ing shield guardian with 50 hit points. Holy Bahamut.
If the druid in my campaign (the yet-to-be-rich Kalvirix the Ice Cream Warrior) chose to snatch some metal armor for himself I would say that he gets lead poisoning and loses 1 hit point for every 10 minutes he wears it. He got around this with a homebrew background (that is incredibly unbalanced) which replaces any equipment reminiscent of normalcy from his background with a WOODEN ice cream truck that transforms into a @$*#ing shield guardian with 50 hit points. Holy Bahamut.
I don't know if this meant to be in jest, but no players gets around a rule the DM wants to put in place. If the player is using a homebrew background that you didn't create, then they didn't "get around" anything so much as you got them around it. ;)
No I find it fun, TheAlmightyN... He's not playing while everyone else is gaining stuff, so he deserves a magic item. Also, the Ice Cream Guardian (as it is called) has 16 Strength and Constitution, 7s in Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and has none of the original traits a shield guardian has. Its best stuff is casting goodberry 3 times a day, swinging a greatclub, and unleashing a 15-foot cone of cones (DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or take 1d3 cold damage). This is a perk for this druid guy as his spell save DC is only 13 while all the other spellcasters are DC 14 wizards. And it makes a good backstory about him being a guild merchant selling ice cream on city streets and a druid.
But can a moon druid cast shield or also wield a martial weapon or simple weapon which could be useful for multiclassing? A lot of the disadvantage with being a druid isn't just the armor. Being a druid is a lore based challenge by which a player is almost always told they don't function and has to chortle the DM's jimmies in order to get any use out of things.
1. Druids who don't shape shift still can't wear metal armor. Without explaining why, it does seem silly but lets keep it at the hard and fast because that is the raw. 2. Druids who don't get metal armor are usually told that alternatives are impossible by DMs who believe it's because of mechanics whereby there is none stating that the inability to wear metal is because of that reason. Aka I am fine with the hard and fast rule, Druids don't wear metal. If you as a person are going to be in combat however, you would seek avenues to better protect yourself ALWAYS. There is no time you wouldn't try to the best of your abilities and beliefs. If the game stated in words, "This is due to balancing." I'd believe it but just as RAW people insist that it is a hard and fast rule, it is also RAW that there is nothing preventing alternate avenues. This is even talked about under Sage Advice for Druids. 3.Druid if you go with it being fair for them to seek avenues it's a lore dump to study each bone and skin type for each animal and determine what sort of defenses are given to you. Like I've had to fight a Stone Giant at level 4 before with a druid. Naked they had higher AC with their skin. I am a healer, damn right I'd harvest the bones of a 17 ac CR 7 creature... only to be told that it would be no better than wearing hide which was worse than I had because studded armor was allowed for some reason. 4. Wildshape for animal forms is also a lore dump unless your character is going to read encyclopedias in the mid-evil age without the proper background for said books and without the said Int stat for books. Remember Int determines memory, not Wis. This means your druid cannot shift into whatever they want. Also you have to change the to hit to your proficiency as a druid by subtracting the natural stat of a creature. [So bears have 5 to hit on their attacks but +4 strength. Their proficiency is therefore +1 but a druid even at level 2 has a proficiency of +2] Not to mention a token to represent it properly so that way it's size isn't ignored. 5. Lore dump for having to find alchemical ingredients and recipes if the DM really really doesn't like it. Out of 5+ groups I've been in the majority did place the chore of recipes and limitation of alchemical processes onto me, nearly invalidating the alchemical tools proficiency as a whole except when used for investigation during time pauses. 6. Druids do have the silly inconsistency of using metal weapons in melee... but overall lore isn't really bothered here. [Except you can't use Shilelagh on it, and no real druid should be using any metal weapon typically. It's allowed but most of my Druids don't except excluding dagger usage which could easily be made of bone instead.] So even though it isn't said as a rule, Wis doesn't benefit melee weapons that you can't cast Shilelagh on and most melee weapons are not wood. [There are already in-built mechanical reasons.] A druid with high strength or dex will be punished if they ever shapeshift because dominant stats do not carry over on the physical end and it's simply a waste to want that anywhere except in dex/AC. Why do druids need a metal weapon? Probably to make leather hides or to carve wood armor or skin a dragon. You can argue they could get a magical non-metal weapon to do that I suppose but it's silly. 7.This is the same class that has a spell called speak to animals that people don't realize works on all beasts and try to exclude you from talking to animals classified as beasts like Spiders. And where you have to even with this ability roll persuasion because animal friendship is a charm spell that doesn't create any lasting bonds thus ruining the entire idea of being a druid even when you don't want an army of neopets following you around. [So basically anti-benefit lore creating unless you also get high cha for a druid.] I've had situations where speak to beast still didn't prevent beasts whom I talked to and negotiated with peacefully one time to prevent me from checking to see if we are for some reason no longer friendly IN THE SAME DAY because the act of being nice to enemies is really that foreign even with beasts in this game. [Imagine getting a comprehend languages druid here as well.] 8. Lore dump for finding reagents for Druid casting because I'm supposed to find a gilded acorn with various animal parts totaling 200gp naturally? Is there a guy around here who sells gold leaf and then knows how to correctly apply it to the weird giant acorn that has the random animal parts in it so I can use summon beast before I get conjure animals? Luckily if you do get allowed this, it at least isn't consumable.
RAW is being argued, but when it comes to druids I really do think RAW should be RAI because as a DM if you aren't going to deal with all the lore that a druid is going to force on you, but you aren't going to ban druids, you're gonna make a lot of sad players. It would be sad if a lot of DMs stopped allowing Druids which is why Sage Advice even gave an opinion about armor for druids but it still needs to be argued because DMs still lore restrict an already lore heavy class. [This is an official WoTC ruling so it is actually RAW]
My druid uses mage armor - I cast healing spells for the wizard, and he casts mage armor for me. We all get along that way. With a shield and a dex bonus, it's certainly "good enough" since my role (as the party's only healer) is not to be front-line melee.
We found a suit of +1 studded leather, and I asked the DM what the studs were. He said they were iron. I shrugged, and said I can't wear that, and the rogue gladly took it. The DM said he would allow me to wear it, and I replied that wasn't the point, my beliefs were that I wasn't going to wear any armor with metal studs or buckles. Some druids are more strict than others, and I was going to live by my beliefs.
Sometimes, it's not about maximizing your character. Sometimes it's about having fun playing a character.
My druid uses mage armor - I cast healing spells for the wizard, and he casts mage armor for me. We all get along that way. With a shield and a dex bonus, it's certainly "good enough" since my role (as the party's only healer) is not to be front-line melee.
We found a suit of +1 studded leather, and I asked the DM what the studs were. He said they were iron. I shrugged, and said I can't wear that, and the rogue gladly took it. The DM said he would allow me to wear it, and I replied that wasn't the point, my beliefs were that I wasn't going to wear any armor with metal studs or buckles. Some druids are more strict than others, and I was going to live by my beliefs.
Sometimes, it's not about maximizing your character. Sometimes it's about having fun playing a character.
Which is part of what made Druids in Second Edition wearing Dragon Scale or Ankheg Platemail so satisfying. Powerful Natural armors even without magic present on them that not just everybody could wear. It's just not quite the same as the light and medium armor restriction that they have in 5th edition.
True, but there are still a handful of printed natural material magic item armors that are medium or light. I'm not sure about restrictions in previous editions, but these options seem like fine choices for a druid. Dragon scale mail and serpent scale armor seem like perfect magic items for a druid to find.
It's worth noting that the Player's Handbook states:
druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal
It doesn't say that they "normally don't wear metal armour" which is very much changing the meaning of the text.
It doesn't say they explode or anything, and the wording states that it's definitely a choice, but it's a choice that is integral to being a druid.
There are plenty of options though for wearing heavier armor, including various non-metal substances (chitin, dragon scale etc).
No it doesn't. It states that, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
Jeremy Crawford describes the situation as being a "taboo". I think of it as something that is deeply rooted in the identity of druids.
Perhaps we can think of it in terms of groups of individuals.
One group we can imagine is of "druids".
Another group can be of individuals who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
A direct reading phrase, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" will bring us to the conclusion that all individuals in the first group are also in the second as per, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
Whether I'm DMing or, I think it would remain perfectly physical possible for a person, druid or not, to have got into a situation in which they are donning armor and shields made of metal but I'd question the effect this would have on an individual defined as a druid (who, we understand, "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"). I'm left to wonder what the effect this might have. Did the druid don the armour themselves? In that case, they would no longer fit the PHB's description of druid. Would they be distracted by the wearing of the armor? I think that's a possibility. I'd personally impose penalties on a druid that simply chose to wear metal armor at minimum of a slow down in experience gain. If there wasn't a good, thematic rationale for wearing metallic armour I'd look at options that go a lot further. Why wouldn't I? The druid class is already strong.
There are six pages to this thread. You do not need to quote and argue with a site moderator, from the first page, from a year-and-a-half ago.
You especially do not need to argue with them when your quotes line up. If your quibble is over their choice of formatting, that's a degree of pedantry I'm not sure anyone here can help you with. All you did was add punctuation and bolded two words.
Both Crawford and Mearls have weighed in on the subject, and it's also a topic in Sage Advice. You can find the full entry starting on page 3, in case you were wondering.
Your associations between people who are "druids" and people who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is faulty, overly complicated, and unnecessarily verbose. We don't care about the Venn diagram of people because it's unnecessary to this discussion.
Yes, Venn diagram. There are druids, such as druids who worshiped Mielikki in D&D 3 and 3.5, who had no prohibition on wearing metal armor. What we have in the PHB is a combination of lore and a "general rule" that is meant to be applicable across all the many settings possible. There can always be specific exceptions.
I don't even know what you're getting at in the last paragraph.
It is a GM call, but there's lots of reasons not to permit it and you will be losing something special if you do permit it.
Just go make scale armor from seeds.
You could, maybe, even make plate from Quebracho (a type of tree called, in Spanish, "axe breaker"). It'd, no doubt, require high level Druid magic just to work with the stuff. Imagine being an Elf and growing the tree from a seed, shaping it like a bonsai, so that it grows into the desired shape. That'd be cool.
It is a GM call, but there's lots of reasons not to permit it and you will be losing something special if you do permit it.
Just go make scale armor from seeds.
You could, maybe, even make plate from Quebracho (a type of tree called, in Spanish, "axe breaker"). It'd, no doubt, require high level Druid magic just to work with the stuff.
... 4. Your associations between people who are "druids" and people who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is faulty, overly complicated, and unnecessarily verbose. ....
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language. If anything your criticism might be that my argument is overly simplistic, but I often find that simplicity is a good starting point.
Thank you for your reference back to Crawford and Mearls' sage advice:
A history is mentioned that presents that: "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order." Then comes a suggestion to, "Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to."
We are left potentially to ask questions about what happens to a druid should they make choices that aren't "part of their identity as a mystical order".
"... a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to" but, by doing so, they cease to be a vegetarian. "...if a druid wears metal armor.. The druid explodes. Well, not actually" while understanding that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
So where does the baseline druid stand as a "druid" if they do something that a druid will not do. All we know for sure is that they won't explode.
The rest is down to DM interpretation. Back on the identity issues we read that, "Druids ... have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
The player is told that, "As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."
It will then be up to a DM to decide on potential consequences of what may happen in regard to a druid who wears armor or use shields made of metal within a context in which it is clear that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language. Thank you again for your reference as well as for your suggestion. I'm just trying to read the content in a straightforward way but will certainly seek to be more thorough in future.
... 4. Your associations between people who are "druids" and people who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is faulty, overly complicated, and unnecessarily verbose. ....
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language. If anything your criticism might be that my argument is overly simplistic, but I often find that simplicity is a good starting point.
Thank you for your reference back to Crawford and Mearls' sage advice:
A history is mentioned that presents that: "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order." Then comes a suggestion to, "Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to."
We are left potentially to ask questions about what happens to a druid should they make choices that aren't "part of their identity as a mystical order".
"... a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to" but, by doing so, they cease to be a vegetarian. "...if a druid wears metal armor.. The druid explodes. Well, not actually" while understanding that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
So where does the baseline druid stand as a "druid" if they do something that a druid will not do. All we know for sure is that they won't explode.
The rest is down to DM interpretation. Back on the identity issues we read that, "Druids ... have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
The player is told that, "As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."
It will then be up to a DM to decide on potential consequences of what may happen in regard to a druid who wears armor or use shields made of metal within a context in which it is clear that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
I don't really understand what you are arguing. If you want druids in your world to wear metal armor, then have them wear metal armor. You are the GM. If you aren't the GM, then ask him, not us. Even if we agreed with you (which isn't going to happen), it is still up to your GM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except for one problem. Barding is not Strictly armor. It's actually a seperated distinctive subclass of armor that is called out as unique basically with it's own rules and parts of the body that it covers that are not necessarily addressed even by magical armor.
Also...Some Elementals don't technically necessarily have hands. Of the 4 basic types of elementals if you actually read their descriptions. Only one of them is even described as having appendages of any kind at all. And only club like arms are described in that one which is the earth elemental. All the rest are described as a kind of force of nature type shape with a face such as wave or a tornado.
Other elemental forms are not naturally available to even moon Druids and even those basic forms are only available to moon druids in 5th edition.
I was using barding as a term for 'armor worn by beasts', not as a reference to the specific gear in the PHB.
you may have been. But that is still a distinction that does clearly exist in the game so should have consideration when it is brought up.
If the druid in my campaign (the yet-to-be-rich Kalvirix the Ice Cream Warrior) chose to snatch some metal armor for himself I would say that he gets lead poisoning and loses 1 hit point for every 10 minutes he wears it. He got around this with a homebrew background (that is incredibly unbalanced) which replaces any equipment reminiscent of normalcy from his background with a WOODEN ice cream truck that transforms into a @$*#ing shield guardian with 50 hit points. Holy Bahamut.
I don't know if this meant to be in jest, but no players gets around a rule the DM wants to put in place. If the player is using a homebrew background that you didn't create, then they didn't "get around" anything so much as you got them around it. ;)
No I find it fun, TheAlmightyN... He's not playing while everyone else is gaining stuff, so he deserves a magic item. Also, the Ice Cream Guardian (as it is called) has 16 Strength and Constitution, 7s in Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and has none of the original traits a shield guardian has. Its best stuff is casting goodberry 3 times a day, swinging a greatclub, and unleashing a 15-foot cone of cones (DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or take 1d3 cold damage). This is a perk for this druid guy as his spell save DC is only 13 while all the other spellcasters are DC 14 wizards. And it makes a good backstory about him being a guild merchant selling ice cream on city streets and a druid.
wait can a nature cleric wild shape?
No. but it can wear metal armor.
But can a moon druid cast shield or also wield a martial weapon or simple weapon which could be useful for multiclassing? A lot of the disadvantage with being a druid isn't just the armor. Being a druid is a lore based challenge by which a player is almost always told they don't function and has to chortle the DM's jimmies in order to get any use out of things.
1. Druids who don't shape shift still can't wear metal armor. Without explaining why, it does seem silly but lets keep it at the hard and fast because that is the raw.
2. Druids who don't get metal armor are usually told that alternatives are impossible by DMs who believe it's because of mechanics whereby there is none stating that the inability to wear metal is because of that reason. Aka I am fine with the hard and fast rule, Druids don't wear metal. If you as a person are going to be in combat however, you would seek avenues to better protect yourself ALWAYS. There is no time you wouldn't try to the best of your abilities and beliefs. If the game stated in words, "This is due to balancing." I'd believe it but just as RAW people insist that it is a hard and fast rule, it is also RAW that there is nothing preventing alternate avenues. This is even talked about under Sage Advice for Druids.
3.Druid if you go with it being fair for them to seek avenues it's a lore dump to study each bone and skin type for each animal and determine what sort of defenses are given to you. Like I've had to fight a Stone Giant at level 4 before with a druid. Naked they had higher AC with their skin. I am a healer, damn right I'd harvest the bones of a 17 ac CR 7 creature... only to be told that it would be no better than wearing hide which was worse than I had because studded armor was allowed for some reason.
4. Wildshape for animal forms is also a lore dump unless your character is going to read encyclopedias in the mid-evil age without the proper background for said books and without the said Int stat for books. Remember Int determines memory, not Wis. This means your druid cannot shift into whatever they want. Also you have to change the to hit to your proficiency as a druid by subtracting the natural stat of a creature. [So bears have 5 to hit on their attacks but +4 strength. Their proficiency is therefore +1 but a druid even at level 2 has a proficiency of +2] Not to mention a token to represent it properly so that way it's size isn't ignored.
5. Lore dump for having to find alchemical ingredients and recipes if the DM really really doesn't like it. Out of 5+ groups I've been in the majority did place the chore of recipes and limitation of alchemical processes onto me, nearly invalidating the alchemical tools proficiency as a whole except when used for investigation during time pauses.
6. Druids do have the silly inconsistency of using metal weapons in melee... but overall lore isn't really bothered here. [Except you can't use Shilelagh on it, and no real druid should be using any metal weapon typically. It's allowed but most of my Druids don't except excluding dagger usage which could easily be made of bone instead.] So even though it isn't said as a rule, Wis doesn't benefit melee weapons that you can't cast Shilelagh on and most melee weapons are not wood. [There are already in-built mechanical reasons.] A druid with high strength or dex will be punished if they ever shapeshift because dominant stats do not carry over on the physical end and it's simply a waste to want that anywhere except in dex/AC. Why do druids need a metal weapon? Probably to make leather hides or to carve wood armor or skin a dragon. You can argue they could get a magical non-metal weapon to do that I suppose but it's silly.
7.This is the same class that has a spell called speak to animals that people don't realize works on all beasts and try to exclude you from talking to animals classified as beasts like Spiders. And where you have to even with this ability roll persuasion because animal friendship is a charm spell that doesn't create any lasting bonds thus ruining the entire idea of being a druid even when you don't want an army of neopets following you around. [So basically anti-benefit lore creating unless you also get high cha for a druid.] I've had situations where speak to beast still didn't prevent beasts whom I talked to and negotiated with peacefully one time to prevent me from checking to see if we are for some reason no longer friendly IN THE SAME DAY because the act of being nice to enemies is really that foreign even with beasts in this game. [Imagine getting a comprehend languages druid here as well.]
8. Lore dump for finding reagents for Druid casting because I'm supposed to find a gilded acorn with various animal parts totaling 200gp naturally? Is there a guy around here who sells gold leaf and then knows how to correctly apply it to the weird giant acorn that has the random animal parts in it so I can use summon beast before I get conjure animals? Luckily if you do get allowed this, it at least isn't consumable.
RAW is being argued, but when it comes to druids I really do think RAW should be RAI because as a DM if you aren't going to deal with all the lore that a druid is going to force on you, but you aren't going to ban druids, you're gonna make a lot of sad players. It would be sad if a lot of DMs stopped allowing Druids which is why Sage Advice even gave an opinion about armor for druids but it still needs to be argued because DMs still lore restrict an already lore heavy class. [This is an official WoTC ruling so it is actually RAW]
My druid uses mage armor - I cast healing spells for the wizard, and he casts mage armor for me. We all get along that way. With a shield and a dex bonus, it's certainly "good enough" since my role (as the party's only healer) is not to be front-line melee.
We found a suit of +1 studded leather, and I asked the DM what the studs were. He said they were iron. I shrugged, and said I can't wear that, and the rogue gladly took it. The DM said he would allow me to wear it, and I replied that wasn't the point, my beliefs were that I wasn't going to wear any armor with metal studs or buckles. Some druids are more strict than others, and I was going to live by my beliefs.
Sometimes, it's not about maximizing your character. Sometimes it's about having fun playing a character.
Which is part of what made Druids in Second Edition wearing Dragon Scale or Ankheg Platemail so satisfying. Powerful Natural armors even without magic present on them that not just everybody could wear. It's just not quite the same as the light and medium armor restriction that they have in 5th edition.
True, but there are still a handful of printed natural material magic item armors that are medium or light. I'm not sure about restrictions in previous editions, but these options seem like fine choices for a druid. Dragon scale mail and serpent scale armor seem like perfect magic items for a druid to find.
No it doesn't. It states that, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
Jeremy Crawford describes the situation as being a "taboo". I think of it as something that is deeply rooted in the identity of druids.
Perhaps we can think of it in terms of groups of individuals.
One group we can imagine is of "druids".
Another group can be of individuals who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
A direct reading phrase, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" will bring us to the conclusion that all individuals in the first group are also in the second as per, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
Whether I'm DMing or, I think it would remain perfectly physical possible for a person, druid or not, to have got into a situation in which they are donning armor and shields made of metal but I'd question the effect this would have on an individual defined as a druid (who, we understand, "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"). I'm left to wonder what the effect this might have. Did the druid don the armour themselves? In that case, they would no longer fit the PHB's description of druid. Would they be distracted by the wearing of the armor? I think that's a possibility. I'd personally impose penalties on a druid that simply chose to wear metal armor at minimum of a slow down in experience gain. If there wasn't a good, thematic rationale for wearing metallic armour I'd look at options that go a lot further. Why wouldn't I? The druid class is already strong.
There's a lot to unpack here.
It is a GM call, but there's lots of reasons not to permit it and you will be losing something special if you do permit it.
Just go make scale armor from seeds.
You could, maybe, even make plate from Quebracho (a type of tree called, in Spanish, "axe breaker"). It'd, no doubt, require high level Druid magic just to work with the stuff. Imagine being an Elf and growing the tree from a seed, shaping it like a bonsai, so that it grows into the desired shape. That'd be cool.
I do miss exotic materials, like Ironwood.
But, yeah, Storm King's Thunder has stone breastplates. And I think there's an Out of the Abyss AL adventure with half plate of poison resistance made from mushrooms.
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language. If anything your criticism might be that my argument is overly simplistic, but I often find that simplicity is a good starting point.
Thank you for your reference back to Crawford and Mearls' sage advice:
A history is mentioned that presents that: "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order." Then comes a suggestion to, "Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to."
We are left potentially to ask questions about what happens to a druid should they make choices that aren't "part of their identity as a mystical order".
"... a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to" but, by doing so, they cease to be a vegetarian.
"...if a druid wears metal armor.. The druid explodes. Well, not actually" while understanding that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
So where does the baseline druid stand as a "druid" if they do something that a druid will not do. All we know for sure is that they won't explode.
The rest is down to DM interpretation. Back on the identity issues we read that, "Druids ... have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
The player is told that, "As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."
It will then be up to a DM to decide on potential consequences of what may happen in regard to a druid who wears armor or use shields made of metal within a context in which it is clear that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
Please, do not put words in my mouth. You're picking fights when you do not need to.
Next time, I suggest you read the rest of the discussion before waxing philosophical.
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language.
Thank you again for your reference as well as for your suggestion.
I'm just trying to read the content in a straightforward way but will certainly seek to be more thorough in future.
I don't really understand what you are arguing. If you want druids in your world to wear metal armor, then have them wear metal armor. You are the GM. If you aren't the GM, then ask him, not us. Even if we agreed with you (which isn't going to happen), it is still up to your GM.