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.
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.
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
Note that I advised to replace the Circle of Shepherds with the Conjurer. You'd still keep your Artificer levels. So, you'd get your constant companion from that.
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?
the big deal is not every DM allows magic or willing to be that free with Magic - and it is not fair to cripple a druid from the Medium armor they are proficient in, because of some archaic rule created way back when.
As a druid I don't want to wear animal skin - I don't. So why can't I wear metal if that is what I want to do.
the big deal is not every DM allows magic or willing to be that free with Magic - and it is not fair to cripple a druid from the Medium armor they are proficient in, because of some archaic rule created way back when.
You grossly overstate the impairment. Druids are not generally expected to be front-line combatants unless they're Moon (for whom the whole question is moot), and by standards of second-line spellcasters, having access to light armor + shield is better than bard, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard.
I don't think removing medium armor proficiency from druids is either desirable or tenable. They still have access to better innate AC than a sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. And that's before getting into armor options made from exotic materials. Yes, their proficiency with hide is a legacy from The Complete Druid's Handbook (1994). It's also true their proficiency with medium armor dates back to the 3rd edition Player's Handbook (2000). And even back then, they had ways of getting armor made from exotic materials.
Not a complaint - it is my thoughts and opinion on the matter - that's all
You type that, but that's not how you come across. And whatever it is you think you're doing, you're doing it while also rehashing an argument that's almost 22 years old.
Even your "not every DM allows magic" argument doesn't hold water. Do you have any idea how many subclasses in the PHB aren't inherently magical? Five: one barbarian, two fighter, and two rogue. The rest are. If magic is off the table, then so is the druid and your entirely hypothetical is rendered moot. Never mind that a DM cannot force these terms on their players. Agreeing to sit down and play is a social contract, and it can be broken at any time by any party. I've said it before, in other threads, and I'll say it again here: we can trade hypotheticals til Armageddon and get nowhere. It isn't a productive exercise.
Dungeons and Dragons doesn't do low magic. It isn't built for it. The closest you can get without completely reinventing the wheel is the Gritty Realism variant for a long rest. (How that works with an elf's Trance trait, I have no idea.) But if everyone at the table is fine denying potential adventures and rewards because they don't like high fantasy or magic, then there's no problem. Because that's what the druid's built-in limitation is: an excuse to go looking for magic armor from exotic materials. Orr exotic materials with which to make armor; if you're using the crafting rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything (2017).
Isn't the real argument being made here not that Druids shouldn't be restricted to non-metallic armor, but that Druids should be able to start the game wearing medium armor?
The discussion will be better had if we are all aware of what it is about.
For example, if the druid had a non-metallic medium armor that he/she could start the game with, would your problem go away?
Isn't the real argument being made here not that Druids shouldn't be restricted to non-metallic armor, but that Druids should be able to start the game wearing medium armor?
The discussion will be better had if we are all aware of what it is about.
For example, if the druid had a non-metallic medium armor that he/she could start the game with, would your problem go away?
I think the real problem is the first upgrade. The difference between Hide and a Chain Shirt is 1 AC; maybe there should be a Heavy Hide with AC 13 and stealth disadvantage, but it's not a big deal. However, there's an upgrade step that normally happens before magic armor: the PCs get a breastplate or half-plate. That step doesn't exist for non-metallic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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.
Note that I advised to replace the Circle of Shepherds with the Conjurer. You'd still keep your Artificer levels. So, you'd get your constant companion from that.
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?
the big deal is not every DM allows magic or willing to be that free with Magic - and it is not fair to cripple a druid from the Medium armor they are proficient in, because of some archaic rule created way back when.
As a druid I don't want to wear animal skin - I don't. So why can't I wear metal if that is what I want to do.
You grossly overstate the impairment. Druids are not generally expected to be front-line combatants unless they're Moon (for whom the whole question is moot), and by standards of second-line spellcasters, having access to light armor + shield is better than bard, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard.
the bottom line is this - medium armor proficiency should not be nerfed because of old archaic rule of 'druids don't wear metal'.
this druid doesn't want to wear animal skin -
Then don't. The NPC druid doesn't even wear leather.
Honestly, you're complaining to the wrong crowd. This is between you and the DM.
Not a complaint - it is my thoughts and opinion on the matter - that's all
Easy fix: remove medium armor proficiency from druids.
I don't think removing medium armor proficiency from druids is either desirable or tenable. They still have access to better innate AC than a sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. And that's before getting into armor options made from exotic materials. Yes, their proficiency with hide is a legacy from The Complete Druid's Handbook (1994). It's also true their proficiency with medium armor dates back to the 3rd edition Player's Handbook (2000). And even back then, they had ways of getting armor made from exotic materials.
You type that, but that's not how you come across. And whatever it is you think you're doing, you're doing it while also rehashing an argument that's almost 22 years old.
Even your "not every DM allows magic" argument doesn't hold water. Do you have any idea how many subclasses in the PHB aren't inherently magical? Five: one barbarian, two fighter, and two rogue. The rest are. If magic is off the table, then so is the druid and your entirely hypothetical is rendered moot. Never mind that a DM cannot force these terms on their players. Agreeing to sit down and play is a social contract, and it can be broken at any time by any party. I've said it before, in other threads, and I'll say it again here: we can trade hypotheticals til Armageddon and get nowhere. It isn't a productive exercise.
Dungeons and Dragons doesn't do low magic. It isn't built for it. The closest you can get without completely reinventing the wheel is the Gritty Realism variant for a long rest. (How that works with an elf's Trance trait, I have no idea.) But if everyone at the table is fine denying potential adventures and rewards because they don't like high fantasy or magic, then there's no problem. Because that's what the druid's built-in limitation is: an excuse to go looking for magic armor from exotic materials. Orr exotic materials with which to make armor; if you're using the crafting rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything (2017).
Isn't the real argument being made here not that Druids shouldn't be restricted to non-metallic armor, but that Druids should be able to start the game wearing medium armor?
The discussion will be better had if we are all aware of what it is about.
For example, if the druid had a non-metallic medium armor that he/she could start the game with, would your problem go away?
I think the real problem is the first upgrade. The difference between Hide and a Chain Shirt is 1 AC; maybe there should be a Heavy Hide with AC 13 and stealth disadvantage, but it's not a big deal. However, there's an upgrade step that normally happens before magic armor: the PCs get a breastplate or half-plate. That step doesn't exist for non-metallic.