Hey guys, did you see how good serpent scale armor is? And it’s made from shimmering scales.
This armor consists of a coat and leggings (and perhaps a separate skirt) of leather covered with overlapping pieces of metal, much like the scales of a fish
That's not what the text of the item says in the book.
Serpent Scale Armor
Armor (Scale Mail), Uncommon
This suit of magic armor is made from shimmering scales. While wearing it, you can apply your full Dexterity modifier (instead of a maximum of +2) when determining your Armor Class. In addition, this armor does not impose disadvantage on your Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
You need to be careful when relying on D&D Beyond for all your information. The company has a tendency to add things which shouldn't be there, and it routinely leaves broken functions in the character builder as they are. Barbarians who wear armor can still benefit from their Unarmored Defense if they wear armor, gaining a higher AC than they should be. School of Illusion wizards who know minor illusion from another source, such as being a forest gnome, do not get a replacement cantrip via their Improved Minor Illusion feature. Similarly, the Transmuter's Stone for the School of Transmutation isn't an explicit magic item, so DDB didn't make one up. But they also didn't bother creating a toggle for giving the mage any of the bonuses, so players have to homebrew it. And more recently, the Battle Smith's Steel Defender doesn't line up with the one from Tasha's. It was revised almost a year and a half ago, and the company is just shrugging its shoulders. I had to build it myself, and I'm going to have to scale it up with each new level.
The tools here are wonderful, but they're not without their limitations. And invoking any link comes with the risk of appealing to authority which does not exist.
Functionally, it's a nonmetallic alternative to Mithral Armor. If you need another context clue, the Serpent's Fang is similarly nonmetallic, being made from "the scrimshawed fang of a giant serpent". Or are you actually trying to say the beast's scales are metal?
I mean, I literally quoted the link the poster used to talk about the armour. Not sure how you're expecting anyone who posts here to also have all the books to cross reference for everything they talk about.
Correction is fine. Suggesting I need clues or that I'm saying that a fang is metallic is just... I don't know what you're doing.
Good show in replying civilly to someone who is baiting you!
I am sorry that I relied on the text of the item from some source other than this site when I brought it up. Certainly the description in other sources such as the text seem to indicate that the armor is in fact not metal.
No one is baiting anyone here, Wren. Between the context clues from the book itself, which is only viewable if you (or someone you share content with) owns a copy via the service and the text on the magic item that's lifted straight from the PHB, it's an honest question.
I am sorry that I relied on the text of the item from some source other than this site when I brought it up. Certainly the description in other sources such as the text seem to indicate that the armor is in fact not metal.
That's a much better way to say that. And confusion happens to anyone and everyone. *shrug*
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.
Serpent Scale Armor is really "+2 studded leather that's unusually heavy and Medium Armor proficiency", and should probably be Rare (this value isn't for being nonmetallic; most of the value comes from it not having a cap on the dexterity adjustment for AC).
Serpent Scale Armor is really "+2 studded leather that's unusually heavy and Medium Armor proficiency", and should probably be Rare (this value isn't for being nonmetallic; most of the value comes from it not having a cap on the dexterity adjustment for AC).
I mean, being nonmetallic is quite valuable if you're a druid that wants to follow that bit of text in your class.
Serpent Scale Armor is really "+2 studded leather that's unusually heavy and Medium Armor proficiency", and should probably be Rare (this value isn't for being nonmetallic; most of the value comes from it not having a cap on the dexterity adjustment for AC).
I mean, being nonmetallic is quite valuable if you're a druid that wants to follow that bit of text in your class.
Increasing the max AC by 3 is a lot more significant.
Of course, which is why it might be important that its non-metallic to a druid who cares to follow that rule. Otherwise, the +3 AC would be worthless on armor that they couldn't wear.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good show in replying civilly to someone who is baiting you!
I am sorry that I relied on the text of the item from some source other than this site when I brought it up. Certainly the description in other sources such as the text seem to indicate that the armor is in fact not metal.
No one is baiting anyone here, Wren. Between the context clues from the book itself, which is only viewable if you (or someone you share content with) owns a copy via the service and the text on the magic item that's lifted straight from the PHB, it's an honest question.
That's a much better way to say that. And confusion happens to anyone and everyone. *shrug*
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.
Serpent Scale Armor is really "+2 studded leather that's unusually heavy and Medium Armor proficiency", and should probably be Rare (this value isn't for being nonmetallic; most of the value comes from it not having a cap on the dexterity adjustment for AC).
I mean, being nonmetallic is quite valuable if you're a druid that wants to follow that bit of text in your class.
Increasing the max AC by 3 is a lot more significant.
Of course, which is why it might be important that its non-metallic to a druid who cares to follow that rule. Otherwise, the +3 AC would be worthless on armor that they couldn't wear.
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.