I mean, even the description from the book doesn't state they are not metallic, it just says they are made from "shimmering scales". Scale mail states that it is made with overlapping pieces of metal, much like the scales of a fish. It never explicitly states it is made of organic shimmering scales, so they could just as easily be made with metal shimmering scales.
I guess that's possible that they're not scorpion scales. But that takes just as much DM FIAT to change the materials of an item as changing the proficiency listed in the druid class, which was the point of bringing it up.
In one sense yes but in that sense ANY DM fiat is the same. Going the other way changing the material of a type of armor is a much smaller change than altering a significant part of a class description.
Exactly, which is the part that begs the question: if you want to play a druid, why would you immediately start tearing apart the bits that make them different?
because you like the other things that make them different - wild shape, spell list, subclasses? "no metal armor" is flavor, not mechanics, and it's totally fine to keep to standard flavor but also fine, pending conversation with your DM, to reflavor. i also think it's fine, if you have a good idea for it, to make a bard who doesn't sing, even though "song" comes up a lot in bard flavor text, or a patron-less warlock, if you have your own cool idea for how to flavor the mechanics. i have no qualms with abiding by flavor text for world-building/consistency's sake but it's an RPG, making it your own is most of the fun.
Exactly, which is the part that begs the question: if you want to play a druid, why would you immediately start tearing apart the bits that make them different?
because you like the other things that make them different - wild shape, spell list, subclasses? "no metal armor" is flavor, not mechanics, and it's totally fine to keep to standard flavor but also fine, pending conversation with your DM, to reflavor.
It is mechanical when certain spells either work differently or not at all.
Exactly, which is the part that begs the question: if you want to play a druid, why would you immediately start tearing apart the bits that make them different?
because you like the other things that make them different - wild shape, spell list, subclasses? "no metal armor" is flavor, not mechanics, and it's totally fine to keep to standard flavor but also fine, pending conversation with your DM, to reflavor.
It is mechanical when certain spells either work differently or not at all.
But that is not tied to the Druid class. That's like saying fighters shouldn't be proficient in Heavy or Medium armor because they are better targets for Shocking Grasp or Heat Metal.
So either:
Your DM doesn't give you exotic material armor and you are stuck with Hide with a 12 + Dex (Max 2)
Your DM does give you exotic material and you are now better off than any other class wearing Medium armor because you are not a target of Heat Metal and Shocking Grasp does not get advantage. -OR-
Your DM waives the "no metal armor but metal weapons are cool" text and you are on equal footing with every other class that is proficient with Medium armor
I think that of all of these, #3 would be the most fair and fun for everyone. Because if you go with #2, the Warlock might start asking if he can have exotic material armor too, and if you go with #1, you're hampering the fun of, say, a Spores Druid who now can't really mix it up in melee if he wants to.
Your first sentence is nonsense. When the actual class proficiency says they refuse to use metal armor or shields, that's the class laying down a mechanic. Deal with it.
As for the rest of that...
Druids can still wear studded leather so they do not suffer disadvantage with Dexterity (Stealth) checks. Hide is cheaper, but 45 gp isn't hard to come by.
If they're obtaining armor via an exotic material, they're not "better" than anyone else. It's likely either magic or they had to go questing for it. That's cool, and it will probably make for a good story.
The entire game, from the differences between NPCs and PCs to how the different classes are designed, is asymmetrical. All of it. And it's quite intentional. There is no need for everyone to be on equal footing, and it's a tired canard that led to all those accursed tier lists in 3.5 and Pathfinder 1.
Not to be flippant, but I don't really care about whatever you think is the most fun for you. Your fun does not have to be someone else's fun. If you want to bend and break the rules, more power to you. When I run games offline, I change up how ability score increases work for character creation. I let beast master rangers get progressively stronger beasts (CR 1/2 at 7th-level, Large size at 11th-level, and CR 1 at 15th-level), and I fix what I think are some minor omissions in the original text. I do all kinds of stuff. But that's my table; my rules.
Some of us are trying to tell you how something works and why. You're free to disregard that and do things your own way. You do not need to stomp your feet about that.
Anyone can ask for an exotic material. Leather could come from any number of animals. About 2/3 of the current leather market is made from some bovine, but there's also sheep, goat, and pig leather. And then we get into the really exotic stuff, like alligator. In Dragon of Icespire Peak, there's an anchorite of talos who wears hide made from an octopus. But it could just as easily be dragonhide. It might not have a mechanical impact, or it might be so minor a magic item that it doesn't impact a character's statistics. In the 3.5 Draconomicon, all dragonhide did was be immune to the damage type of the dragon it came from. It didn't confer any of that to the wearer. Red dragonhide could be immune to fire damage. That's only going to come up if it isn't being worn or carried.
So, yeah, maybe your entire party wants to go hunting for ankhegs or bulettes to make armor out of. That's fine. Let them. Why shouldn't anyone else want an exotic material? There's no good reason to stop them. It's their game.
Why did they give the Druid Medium armor proficiency that they can only use for one type that is worse than most Light armors? It just doesn't seem to make sense.
Because they wanted to give druids the option to wear hide.
It is mechanical when certain spells either work differently or not at all.
But that is not tied to the Druid class. That's like saying fighters shouldn't be proficient in Heavy or Medium armor because they are better targets for Shocking Grasp or Heat Metal.
So either:
Your DM doesn't give you exotic material armor and you are stuck with Hide with a 12 + Dex (Max 2)
Your DM does give you exotic material and you are now better off than any other class wearing Medium armor because you are not a target of Heat Metal and Shocking Grasp does not get advantage. -OR-
Your DM waives the "no metal armor but metal weapons are cool" text and you are on equal footing with every other class that is proficient with Medium armor
I think that of all of these, #3 would be the most fair and fun for everyone. Because if you go with #2, the Warlock might start asking if he can have exotic material armor too, and if you go with #1, you're hampering the fun of, say, a Spores Druid who now can't really mix it up in melee if he wants to.
Your first sentence is nonsense. When the actual class proficiency says they refuse to use metal armor or shields, that's the class laying down a mechanic. Deal with it.
As for the rest of that...
Druids can still wear studded leather so they do not suffer disadvantage with Dexterity (Stealth) checks. Hide is cheaper, but 45 gp isn't hard to come by.
If they're obtaining armor via an exotic material, they're not "better" than anyone else. It's likely either magic or they had to go questing for it. That's cool, and it will probably make for a good story.
The entire game, from the differences between NPCs and PCs to how the different classes are designed, is asymmetrical. All of it. And it's quite intentional. There is no need for everyone to be on equal footing, and it's a tired canard that led to all those accursed tier lists in 3.5 and Pathfinder 1.
Not to be flippant, but I don't really care about whatever you think is the most fun for you. Your fun does not have to be someone else's fun. If you want to bend and break the rules, more power to you. When I run games offline, I change up how ability score increases work for character creation. I let beast master rangers get progressively stronger beasts (CR 1/2 at 7th-level, Large size at 11th-level, and CR 1 at 15th-level), and I fix what I think are some minor omissions in the original text. I do all kinds of stuff. But that's my table; my rules.
Some of us are trying to tell you how something works and why. You're free to disregard that and do things your own way. You do not need to stomp your feet about that.
Anyone can ask for an exotic material. Leather could come from any number of animals. About 2/3 of the current leather market is made from some bovine, but there's also sheep, goat, and pig leather. And then we get into the really exotic stuff, like alligator. In Dragon of Icespire Peak, there's an anchorite of talos who wears hide made from an octopus. But it could just as easily be dragonhide. It might not have a mechanical impact, or it might be so minor a magic item that it doesn't impact a character's statistics. In the 3.5 Draconomicon, all dragonhide did was be immune to the damage type of the dragon it came from. It didn't confer any of that to the wearer. Red dragonhide could be immune to fire damage. That's only going to come up if it isn't being worn or carried.
So, yeah, maybe your entire party wants to go hunting for ankhegs or bulettes to make armor out of. That's fine. Let them. Why shouldn't anyone else want an exotic material? There's no good reason to stop them. It's their game.
Again, I am not saying that RAW Druids can wear metal armor. Never has that been my argument. I am simply stating that it seems to be a relic that need not exist as a rule at all.
And per my item 2, yes there armor is inherently better because it cannot be targeted by Heat Metal or grant advantage to a Shocking Grasp attack. It has all of the AC advantage with none of the downside of being metal. If you choose to house rule that it is somehow easier to damage or flammable or something, then you are already adding homebrew, so why not just handwave the "no metal armor" note in the Druid class.
And would you really derail your entire party and send them on a quest so the one Druid can get an armor improvement? I wouldn't want to be at a table where one PC got such special treatment. And are you going to make all magic Medium armor just be exotic, organic materials so the Druid can wear it?
Why did they give the Druid Medium armor proficiency that they can only use for one type that is worse than most Light armors? It just doesn't seem to make sense.
I'm trimming these quotes down so they don't get too long.
What's presented in the books are not just mechanics. A lot of it is flavor. There are stories tied to every race and class; stories that hew closely to archetypes. And we need those archetypes. Without them, without that flavor, we wouldn't know what to do with what's in front of us. Adventurers already beak the mold, prove the rule, by doing things most NPCs cannot. But you cannot prove a rule which doesn't exist. Context matters.
A druid's choice not to wear or use metal armor or shields is context. It's part of that archetypal identity. When you're running the game, you're free to stray from that if you want to. No one can stop you. The rules and flavor, as presented, are generic. They're meant to be tailored and played with; not rigidly adhered to. The books even say so. We're all given blanket permission to on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Just also remember that, if you do so, you're creating a new rule─a new standard for others to either live up to or rebuff.
You want to argue that nonmetal medium armor that isn't hide is better than the alternative. Okay, for the sake of argument, let's run with that. If it's not something they can buy in the Player's Handbook, why shouldn't it be? We have rules for crafting arms and armor. Shouldn't player characters be able to go hunting for rare and exotic crafting materials? We have books upon books containing magic items. Can't any of those break the mold?
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh includes a hobgoblin who wears lootable mariner's scale mail. That lowers the creature's normal AC by 1, but more to the point does that need to be metallic? Or can it be made from, say, the scales of an aquatic creature? What about the white dragon scale mail from Hoard of the Dragon Queen they can get off Talis the White? (Technically, an Adventure's League fix because of a broken certificate.) You can't honestly say that's metallic. Or the stone breastplates, treated with magical oils, from Storm King's Thunder. (Historically, dwarven druids would make and wear plate from alchemically treated stone.) And what about the half-plate of poison resistance, constructed from petrified giant mushrooms, in DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedome? There is precedent for this.
And, honestly, I don't know what is weirder to me. On one hand, you're advocating dumping some flavor text because...reasons. On the other hand, you seem to think that the DM is the one derailing the game. And that's just not true. The players decide what they want to do and how they go about doing it. Each game does have a social contract, there's a certain amount of buy-in required of everyone, but the DM doesn't derail anything. They literally cannot. Nor can they make anyone go along with something. That mentality is so alien to me that I think it shows a profound lack of understanding.
If my players want to go off and do something, that becomes the adventure. There might be consequences if there's a time crunch, but that's their choice. Critical Role's second campaign featured an arc where Fjord Stone broke his pact with his patron and pact weapon, throwing his sword of fathoms into a volcano, and going on a quest to forge himself a new weapon so he could make a new warlock pact. And with a Vestige of Divergence, no less. Talk about an upgrade. Would you consider that to be special treatment? Maybe, but it was also a cool story that didn't make him outshine everyone else. It fit what they were trying to do.
As to the question on whether or not I'd have every magic medium armor in my games be nonmetallic, maybe. Probably not, but it's no big deal if I do. Sometimes, the reason for why something exists isn't always immediately apparent. Not everyone takes Jeremy Crawford seriously, but has mentioned future-proofing in the past. Just because you can't fathom why a druid would have proficiency with medium armor right away doesn't mean they shouldn't have the proficiency. Part of the fun, at least for me, is not knowing what's behind the curtain. And it encourages creativity.
The issue is that you are asking/requiring the whole party to do something for the minor benefit of one character. What if the party says "No"? Does the Druid just languish in his hide and be sad?
Yes. It's not like they're any worse off than a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Druids do not particularly need access to superior armor.
The issue is that you are asking/requiring the whole party to do something for the minor benefit of one character. What if the party says "No"?
Well, why should the DM tell the party that this is just for one PC. Why should the DM even create a quest just for one PC? I mean, you can create a quest that a town or temple is terrorized by a special monster. The fighter wants a trophy, the cleric wants to help the priests of that temple/town, the bard wants inspiration for a new tale to write about etc. There are many ways to let all PCs benefit from that quest. And the druid gets a new armor made of scales or upgraded magical leather/hide.
Except every melee/gish focused Bard or Warlock (Swords/Valor/Hexblade) get Medium armor proficiency no strings attached.
The expected way of building the melee/gish druid is Moon, which doesn't care in the slightest about armor. If you really want good ac on your druid, use a barrier tattoo.
The issue is that you are asking/requiring the whole party to do something for the minor benefit of one character. What if the party says "No"? Does the Druid just languish in his hide and be sad?
Yes. It's not like they're any worse off than a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Druids do not particularly need access to superior armor.
Except every melee/gish focused Bard or Warlock (Swords/Valor/Hexblade) get Medium armor proficiency no strings attached. If they wanted them to never wear Medium armor, don't give them proficiency. If you really really want them to have hide, give them proficiency in only that (but Hide armor is terrible, so why would you want that?)
Spores Druids would really appreciate the ability to have superior armor just like a Swords Bard or Valor Bard as, at least in the early levels, they want to be in melee. And even in later levels, they would probably like the ability to be in melee without worrying about their 14 AC causing everything to hit them.
Don't ignore the forest for the trees, and please don't change the subject. Gish builds aren't the issue here. Plenty of classes have proficiencies they don't necessarily need to make use of. You can make a fighter or war domain cleric who uses Dexterity over Strength and confines themselves to light armor. Just because you get medium armor proficiency doesn't mean you have to use it. A college or swords or valor bard in medium armor probably isn't fighting with a finesse weapon, like a rapier or scimitar. It's a good thing, then, that bards are also proficient with the longsword, and all valor bards are proficient with every martial weapon. What the bonus proficiencies do is give options. They're not requirements.
The point behind giving druids proficiency with medium armor, is, again, future-proofing. Just because there wasn't medium armor besides hide in the PHB doesn't mean it couldn't be more options later on. Back in the days of 3.5 and 4E, there were all sorts of exotic materials for masterwork armor and weapons. And the D&DNext playtest packets had both studded dragon leather and dragon scale armor that was medium. There is expressly nonmetallic medium armor in the DMG that druids can wear.
One way to sidestep the conversation entirely is just having the druid wear spiked armor. Only one lower than half plate, not real implication that there's any metal at all. Boom.
remember in previous editions when wizards couldnt wear armor because it interfered with their spell casting... oh but now if you multiclass into fighter you can wear full plate and still cast.... druids got ripped
remember in previous editions when wizards couldnt wear armor because it interfered with their spell casting... oh but now if you multiclass into fighter you can wear full plate and still cast.... druids got ripped
This showed up as a reply to me. I'm not sure why. I don't remember previous editions at all.
And you're right, it is an esoteric restriction that -- since the developers have said that it is not a balance issue -- is an opportunity for flavor or discussion with your DM, not necessarily a penalty.
My player character is a Pokémon trainer, combining the Battle Smith Artificer and Circle of Shepherd subclasses to achieve that vision. No part of my vision for the character is of a tree-hugging hippie with an aversion to metal or technology. Quite the opposite, since as an Artificer I envision him as being primarily a steel-type trainer. If other druids want to observe an inane taboo against wearing armor, I'm not going to let that hold my character back. In fact, as an Artificer he crafter a metal codpiece to protect his groin.
My player character is a Pokémon trainer, combining the Battle Smith Artificer and Circle of Shepherd subclasses to achieve that vision. No part of my vision for the character is of a tree-hugging hippie with an aversion to metal or technology. Quite the opposite, since as an Artificer I envision him as being primarily a steel-type trainer. If other druids want to observe an inane taboo against wearing armor, I'm not going to let that hold my character back. In fact, as an Artificer he crafter a metal codpiece to protect his groin.
I recommend that you replace Circle of Shepherds with a Conjuror. That lets you get the real weirdness of Pokemon critters and iit lets you be more like Ash (and every other Pokemon trainer), who doesn't wear any armor.
You don't get a pet as a Conjurer. If I wasn't going to do a Druid, then a Ranger Beast Master, Drakewarden, or even Swarmkeeper would seem to make more sense for a Pokémon Trainer. Until 10th level, Conjurers gat no features that make them better summoners, and even then, its really minimal benefits.
People want druids to be vegetarians - yet it is OK for them to walk around all day in the skin of an animal. You can use other materials then metal - like bones? barks? scales from other living creatures? (although gifted dragon scales are actually a fair and valid thing, but lets see how realistic that is for the level 4 adventuring druid lol)
Oh use shields of wood - which are trees which are alive and beautiful
Use this Scimitar to slay your enemy - its OK that is metal, I mean it doesn't make sense to use wood for that right?
But deny a druid the ability to protect themselves with metal.
Insane, old school BS that someone thought up waaaaaaay long ago and said - oh that would be 'cool'
it aint cool, it is time that line is taken out of the handbook or a rewrite is added like Tasha's where it allows the player to do what they want.
I want to play a druid that wants to stay alive, who has no adverse reaction to metal on her back, especially since she wields it in her hands, when she needs to, she cooks food in metal pots and uses metal in plenty of other ways.
People want druids to be vegetarians - yet it is OK for them to walk around all day in the skin of an animal.
People don't want druids to be vegetarians, they want druids to be 'natural'. In any case, the real question isn't intent, it's whether
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
is flavor text or rule. Given where it's placed, it appears to be a rule. I suspect it would have been better (with no balance implications) to just delete their medium armor proficiency, delete the metal armor restriction, and delete hide armor.
I understand what the first post was, my point is this.
I want to play D&D and there are certain rules in place that are required - but to say Druids can wear Medium armor - then negate all but one by adding a 'druids will not wear metal'
it is a stupid rule is all my point is and like Tasha changed the 'rules' in saying - you can choose where your racial abilities goes - because let's not force certain races to be 'best in class' and if you wanted to play a class with a race that is 'not suited' then you can be 'less'.
I would note that magic item special features can convert any armor to non-metallic -- creator result 13 and minor property 13 can definitely do so, and creator results 6, 11, 17, and 20 might do so.
I would note that magic item special features can convert any armor to non-metallic -- creator result 13 and minor property 13 can definitely do so, and creator results 6, 11, 17, and 20 might do so.
Yes, but now for a Druid to use his proficient armor, the DM needs to give him magical armor. So either the Druid gets a free magic item when no one else does form the DM, or the Druid has to choose magic armor over another magic item when making loot requests to the DM.
There are multiple adventures, both hardcover and AL packets, which already include magic armor made from nonmetallic substances. What's the big deal?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In one sense yes but in that sense ANY DM fiat is the same. Going the other way changing the material of a type of armor is a much smaller change than altering a significant part of a class description.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
because you like the other things that make them different - wild shape, spell list, subclasses? "no metal armor" is flavor, not mechanics, and it's totally fine to keep to standard flavor but also fine, pending conversation with your DM, to reflavor. i also think it's fine, if you have a good idea for it, to make a bard who doesn't sing, even though "song" comes up a lot in bard flavor text, or a patron-less warlock, if you have your own cool idea for how to flavor the mechanics. i have no qualms with abiding by flavor text for world-building/consistency's sake but it's an RPG, making it your own is most of the fun.
It is mechanical when certain spells either work differently or not at all.
Your first sentence is nonsense. When the actual class proficiency says they refuse to use metal armor or shields, that's the class laying down a mechanic. Deal with it.
As for the rest of that...
Not to be flippant, but I don't really care about whatever you think is the most fun for you. Your fun does not have to be someone else's fun. If you want to bend and break the rules, more power to you. When I run games offline, I change up how ability score increases work for character creation. I let beast master rangers get progressively stronger beasts (CR 1/2 at 7th-level, Large size at 11th-level, and CR 1 at 15th-level), and I fix what I think are some minor omissions in the original text. I do all kinds of stuff. But that's my table; my rules.
Some of us are trying to tell you how something works and why. You're free to disregard that and do things your own way. You do not need to stomp your feet about that.
Anyone can ask for an exotic material. Leather could come from any number of animals. About 2/3 of the current leather market is made from some bovine, but there's also sheep, goat, and pig leather. And then we get into the really exotic stuff, like alligator. In Dragon of Icespire Peak, there's an anchorite of talos who wears hide made from an octopus. But it could just as easily be dragonhide. It might not have a mechanical impact, or it might be so minor a magic item that it doesn't impact a character's statistics. In the 3.5 Draconomicon, all dragonhide did was be immune to the damage type of the dragon it came from. It didn't confer any of that to the wearer. Red dragonhide could be immune to fire damage. That's only going to come up if it isn't being worn or carried.
So, yeah, maybe your entire party wants to go hunting for ankhegs or bulettes to make armor out of. That's fine. Let them. Why shouldn't anyone else want an exotic material? There's no good reason to stop them. It's their game.
Because they wanted to give druids the option to wear hide.
I'm trimming these quotes down so they don't get too long.
What's presented in the books are not just mechanics. A lot of it is flavor. There are stories tied to every race and class; stories that hew closely to archetypes. And we need those archetypes. Without them, without that flavor, we wouldn't know what to do with what's in front of us. Adventurers already beak the mold, prove the rule, by doing things most NPCs cannot. But you cannot prove a rule which doesn't exist. Context matters.
A druid's choice not to wear or use metal armor or shields is context. It's part of that archetypal identity. When you're running the game, you're free to stray from that if you want to. No one can stop you. The rules and flavor, as presented, are generic. They're meant to be tailored and played with; not rigidly adhered to. The books even say so. We're all given blanket permission to on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Just also remember that, if you do so, you're creating a new rule─a new standard for others to either live up to or rebuff.
You want to argue that nonmetal medium armor that isn't hide is better than the alternative. Okay, for the sake of argument, let's run with that. If it's not something they can buy in the Player's Handbook, why shouldn't it be? We have rules for crafting arms and armor. Shouldn't player characters be able to go hunting for rare and exotic crafting materials? We have books upon books containing magic items. Can't any of those break the mold?
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh includes a hobgoblin who wears lootable mariner's scale mail. That lowers the creature's normal AC by 1, but more to the point does that need to be metallic? Or can it be made from, say, the scales of an aquatic creature? What about the white dragon scale mail from Hoard of the Dragon Queen they can get off Talis the White? (Technically, an Adventure's League fix because of a broken certificate.) You can't honestly say that's metallic. Or the stone breastplates, treated with magical oils, from Storm King's Thunder. (Historically, dwarven druids would make and wear plate from alchemically treated stone.) And what about the half-plate of poison resistance, constructed from petrified giant mushrooms, in DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedome? There is precedent for this.
And, honestly, I don't know what is weirder to me. On one hand, you're advocating dumping some flavor text because...reasons. On the other hand, you seem to think that the DM is the one derailing the game. And that's just not true. The players decide what they want to do and how they go about doing it. Each game does have a social contract, there's a certain amount of buy-in required of everyone, but the DM doesn't derail anything. They literally cannot. Nor can they make anyone go along with something. That mentality is so alien to me that I think it shows a profound lack of understanding.
If my players want to go off and do something, that becomes the adventure. There might be consequences if there's a time crunch, but that's their choice. Critical Role's second campaign featured an arc where Fjord Stone broke his pact with his patron and pact weapon, throwing his sword of fathoms into a volcano, and going on a quest to forge himself a new weapon so he could make a new warlock pact. And with a Vestige of Divergence, no less. Talk about an upgrade. Would you consider that to be special treatment? Maybe, but it was also a cool story that didn't make him outshine everyone else. It fit what they were trying to do.
As to the question on whether or not I'd have every magic medium armor in my games be nonmetallic, maybe. Probably not, but it's no big deal if I do. Sometimes, the reason for why something exists isn't always immediately apparent. Not everyone takes Jeremy Crawford seriously, but has mentioned future-proofing in the past. Just because you can't fathom why a druid would have proficiency with medium armor right away doesn't mean they shouldn't have the proficiency. Part of the fun, at least for me, is not knowing what's behind the curtain. And it encourages creativity.
How is any of that a bad thing?
Yes. It's not like they're any worse off than a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Druids do not particularly need access to superior armor.
Well, why should the DM tell the party that this is just for one PC. Why should the DM even create a quest just for one PC? I mean, you can create a quest that a town or temple is terrorized by a special monster. The fighter wants a trophy, the cleric wants to help the priests of that temple/town, the bard wants inspiration for a new tale to write about etc. There are many ways to let all PCs benefit from that quest. And the druid gets a new armor made of scales or upgraded magical leather/hide.
The expected way of building the melee/gish druid is Moon, which doesn't care in the slightest about armor. If you really want good ac on your druid, use a barrier tattoo.
Don't ignore the forest for the trees, and please don't change the subject. Gish builds aren't the issue here. Plenty of classes have proficiencies they don't necessarily need to make use of. You can make a fighter or war domain cleric who uses Dexterity over Strength and confines themselves to light armor. Just because you get medium armor proficiency doesn't mean you have to use it. A college or swords or valor bard in medium armor probably isn't fighting with a finesse weapon, like a rapier or scimitar. It's a good thing, then, that bards are also proficient with the longsword, and all valor bards are proficient with every martial weapon. What the bonus proficiencies do is give options. They're not requirements.
The point behind giving druids proficiency with medium armor, is, again, future-proofing. Just because there wasn't medium armor besides hide in the PHB doesn't mean it couldn't be more options later on. Back in the days of 3.5 and 4E, there were all sorts of exotic materials for masterwork armor and weapons. And the D&DNext playtest packets had both studded dragon leather and dragon scale armor that was medium. There is expressly nonmetallic medium armor in the DMG that druids can wear.
One way to sidestep the conversation entirely is just having the druid wear spiked armor. Only one lower than half plate, not real implication that there's any metal at all. Boom.
remember in previous editions when wizards couldnt wear armor because it interfered with their spell casting... oh but now if you multiclass into fighter you can wear full plate and still cast.... druids got ripped
This showed up as a reply to me. I'm not sure why. I don't remember previous editions at all.
And you're right, it is an esoteric restriction that -- since the developers have said that it is not a balance issue -- is an opportunity for flavor or discussion with your DM, not necessarily a penalty.
My player character is a Pokémon trainer, combining the Battle Smith Artificer and Circle of Shepherd subclasses to achieve that vision. No part of my vision for the character is of a tree-hugging hippie with an aversion to metal or technology. Quite the opposite, since as an Artificer I envision him as being primarily a steel-type trainer. If other druids want to observe an inane taboo against wearing armor, I'm not going to let that hold my character back. In fact, as an Artificer he crafter a metal codpiece to protect his groin.
You don't get a pet as a Conjurer. If I wasn't going to do a Druid, then a Ranger Beast Master, Drakewarden, or even Swarmkeeper would seem to make more sense for a Pokémon Trainer. Until 10th level, Conjurers gat no features that make them better summoners, and even then, its really minimal benefits.
Here is my two cents.
People want druids to be vegetarians - yet it is OK for them to walk around all day in the skin of an animal. You can use other materials then metal - like bones? barks? scales from other living creatures? (although gifted dragon scales are actually a fair and valid thing, but lets see how realistic that is for the level 4 adventuring druid lol)
Oh use shields of wood - which are trees which are alive and beautiful
Use this Scimitar to slay your enemy - its OK that is metal, I mean it doesn't make sense to use wood for that right?
But deny a druid the ability to protect themselves with metal.
Insane, old school BS that someone thought up waaaaaaay long ago and said - oh that would be 'cool'
it aint cool, it is time that line is taken out of the handbook or a rewrite is added like Tasha's where it allows the player to do what they want.
I want to play a druid that wants to stay alive, who has no adverse reaction to metal on her back, especially since she wields it in her hands, when she needs to, she cooks food in metal pots and uses metal in plenty of other ways.
People don't want druids to be vegetarians, they want druids to be 'natural'. In any case, the real question isn't intent, it's whether
is flavor text or rule. Given where it's placed, it appears to be a rule. I suspect it would have been better (with no balance implications) to just delete their medium armor proficiency, delete the metal armor restriction, and delete hide armor.
I understand what the first post was, my point is this.
I want to play D&D and there are certain rules in place that are required - but to say Druids can wear Medium armor - then negate all but one by adding a 'druids will not wear metal'
it is a stupid rule is all my point is and like Tasha changed the 'rules' in saying - you can choose where your racial abilities goes - because let's not force certain races to be 'best in class' and if you wanted to play a class with a race that is 'not suited' then you can be 'less'.
Choice is good - negating that is bad
I would note that magic item special features can convert any armor to non-metallic -- creator result 13 and minor property 13 can definitely do so, and creator results 6, 11, 17, and 20 might do so.
There are multiple adventures, both hardcover and AL packets, which already include magic armor made from nonmetallic substances. What's the big deal?