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?
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.
Racial features were designed to make certain races better suited for certain classes. A firbolg makes a great cleric or druid - because it stars with 2 to wisdom.
Tasha's fixed that - ANYONE can do ANYTHING - why? because just because innately a race that is not wise could not mean that 1 wise one didn't make its way into the race and want to become more
Forcing druids to wear no metal is the same thing. Just let us play our druid wearing whatever we want, as long as we have the proficiency to do so. Druids are the 'hybrid' class - they don't deal the most damage in combat, they don't heal the most with their heals. They are proficient in Medium armor and if a druid choose to not wear the hide of an animal instead metal who does that hurt?
- the answer? no one, except those who are so butt hurt or live in the old world that they can't allow us to just play and have fun AND stay safe all at the same time.
I...don't think you're using the term "hybrid" correctly.
Druids, historically, began as an offshoot of the priest class from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But in practice, they're more like nature wizards. In 5th edition, it's still a class with full spellcasting progression. It's still capable of increasing its defenses, like a wizard with mage armor, by wearing armor and wielding a shield. It also has iconic spells like barkskin, and both druids and wizards, along with a smattering of others, can cast stoneskin. And this "hybrid" status is best exemplified by the Circle of the Land. It gains an additional cantrip, the near equivalent of Divine Domain spells, and the equivalent of Arcane Recovery. And that's just all their 2nd level features.
And none of this means they can't deal considerable damage and healing. Whether they're the "best" at any given role can vary from encounter to encounter. Not every bard or cleric is a better at magical healing, and not every sorcerer or wizard is better at dealing damage through their spells.
You may not think it hurts anything to allow for metal armor, and you're entitled to your opinion. Having said that, you've repeatedly dug in your heels; rather than listen and respond to the points others have made. You do not appear interested in having a discussion, and now you've resorted to calling people "butt hurt" for disagreeing with you.
hahaha - I am so very very sorry to those who were upset by my posts and thoughts on the subject. I was stating my opinion, and last I checked, I have the right to do so. Whatever, you all have a very great and happy life, and again so sorry to anyone I offended by my opinion. I was not offended by any others, just earnestly disagree, but obviously that makes me the bad guy. lol peace - joy and happiness to all.
I think it's kind of silly druids "can't" or "won't" wear metal armor considering metal is, in fact, a thing found in nature. The restrictions of armor in general are weird to me. Like I feel a wizard should be able to wear full plate armor if they want to. It won't make casting hard or anything. The only restriction that makes sense to me is the one on monks. Monks actually make sense since they need to have full flexibility and agility so I fully understand them not being weighted down at all and having the agility to block attacks.
But metal is a thing that exists in nature. To the point that there are dragons with scales similar or identical to the properties of known metals. One could argue your metal armor as a druid is made out of the hide/scales of a metallic dragon.
I mean, I wouldn't call people "butthurt" like the chap above for sticking to old rules but to me, the old rules don't really make any sense to me. Why would metal sever their connection to the earth when metal is part of the earth? When the very core of any solid non-gas planets is metal. When the stars are metal (and gas). It just seems like a purely aesthetic choice meant to make druids seem kind of snobby. But it also kind of makes it hard for one to play, say, a vegan druid, if their options for armor are exclusively hide-based and you don't want to flavour hide armor as plant-based because the system calls it hide armor. The metal-avoidance could be retconned as basically a combination of tradition and old wives' tales and general disdain for advanced society. I think it makes perfect sense to just let druids use metal armor, or at the very least, on paper they do but it's flavoured as non-metal (which is a DM choice, generally).
I get it, but at the same time, it just... doesn't really make as much sense as I'd like.
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.
Part of it is balance. You can still carry a shield, which is a pretty sizable AC boost and you're still a full caster with a number of powerful abilities. Just think of it as light armor + shield proficiency. And later in game you may get a special non-metal medium armor. Just like as a Wizard you may get Elven Chain, or you may not. As a DM a special medium armor is an bone I'm immediate looking at throwing a Druid player, for later in the game. But you may not get it. The Druid is plenty strong without it.
Not wanting to wear animal skin as a Druid is a character concept I can totally get on board with. You can just reflavor it. Example: Instead of studded leather, your armor is made of multiple-layered, tightly woven vines from a rare, ancient line of plant that is indigenous to your home world.
I think it's kind of silly druids "can't" or "won't" wear metal armor considering metal is, in fact, a thing found in nature. The restrictions of armor in general are weird to me. Like I feel a wizard should be able to wear full plate armor if they want to. It won't make casting hard or anything. The only restriction that makes sense to me is the one on monks. Monks actually make sense since they need to have full flexibility and agility so I fully understand them not being weighted down at all and having the agility to block attacks.
But metal is a thing that exists in nature. To the point that there are dragons with scales similar or identical to the properties of known metals. One could argue your metal armor as a druid is made out of the hide/scales of a metallic dragon.
I mean, I wouldn't call people "butthurt" like the chap above for sticking to old rules but to me, the old rules don't really make any sense to me. Why would metal sever their connection to the earth when metal is part of the earth? When the very core of any solid non-gas planets is metal. When the stars are metal (and gas). It just seems like a purely aesthetic choice meant to make druids seem kind of snobby. But it also kind of makes it hard for one to play, say, a vegan druid, if their options for armor are exclusively hide-based and you don't want to flavour hide armor as plant-based because the system calls it hide armor. The metal-avoidance could be retconned as basically a combination of tradition and old wives' tales and general disdain for advanced society. I think it makes perfect sense to just let druids use metal armor, or at the very least, on paper they do but it's flavoured as non-metal (which is a DM choice, generally).
I get it, but at the same time, it just... doesn't really make as much sense as I'd like.
Metallic ore is found in nature. Worked metal is not. Ore is subjected to intense heat to extract impurities so only the desired metal remains. This process removes metal's connection to nature by producing an unnatural substance. This stands in contrast to working with natural fibers and materials. Leather armor, like cuir bouilli, didn't have anything taken away. Rather, natural substances were added.
I think you're looking a bit too big (i.e. cosmological) to justify something for your own personal preferences. And if that's how you want to run things in your games at home, that's your purview. That said, I do think you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way.
I would be tempted to rewrite the rule as "Proficiency: non-metallic Light and Medium Armor", thus allowing wearing other armor types if they acquire the proficiency from elsewhere.
Metallic ore is found in nature. Worked metal is not. Ore is subjected to intense heat to extract impurities so only the desired metal remains. This process removes metal's connection to nature by producing an unnatural substance. This stands in contrast to working with natural fibers and materials. Leather armor, like cuir bouilli, didn't have anything taken away. Rather, natural substances were added.
I think you're looking a bit too big (i.e. cosmological) to justify something for your own personal preferences. And if that's how you want to run things in your games at home, that's your purview. That said, I do think you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way.
There's little need to be so rude. I'm not trying to "justify" anything for any preferences. Simply that I find metal is, yes, part of nature. I would argue that ADDING to a substance, natural or otherwise, is no different than REMOVING things from them. Either way you are making something not found exactly in that way in nature, which is supposedly the whole argument behind why druids can't use metal armor. When removing impurities in metal, you're not severing its connection to nature because it's still at its core the same thing. Iron ore is still iron. I don't view it as any different than casting Purify Food and Drink. There is nothing stopping that spell with how it is written from being used to remove poison from poisonous berries, plants, or meat from a poisonous beast. And it is a Druid spell. Removing that which is poison from them is, I think, similar to removing impurities in metal.
Very importantly to the point about how iron is not "natural" but only in armor form, Druids have access to Reincarnate. "The magic fashions a new body for the creature to inhabit, which likely causes the creature's race to change... The reincarnated creature recalls its former life and experiences. It retains the capabilities it had in its original form, except it exchanges its original race for the new one and changes its racial traits accordingly". So the deceased becomes something completely new, with only the thing that makes them who they are intact (their memories). This also feels like the same thing as taking ore and basically doing the equivilent of distilling it to just iron.
Druids are not blocked from wearing metal. Druids can wear metal jewelery. They can wear metal buckles and charms. They are free to carry around copper telescopes and coin. They can use metal weapons, which I thought they couldn't until recently due to the block about armor. Heck, they can wear metal boots if they want to. Druids are allowed to possess as much metal as they choose, they just can't use shields or armor made out of it. Heat Metal is also a druid spell. So by using your own logic they are making things unnatural with their own magic. If they aren't, then they should be able to make metal armor with Heat Metal if it doesn't remove impurities. You also shouldn't be allowed to play a Warforged druid, but you can. If druids were entirely barred from wearing or handling metal outside coins (kept in a special bag or something), I would agree, perhaps, it makes perfect sense it interferes with their magic or some such. But it doesn't. No. A druid can wear or carry as much metal as they want, as long as it is not armor, and they are free to heat up metal which, as you say, removes impurities and makes metal unnatural. And this, for me, means the block on metal armor and weapons is very arbitrary and for folx like you who want to justify archaeic rules.
I don't even play druids (although I did build one around the concept of "no metal whatsoever" and also, vegan). I simply find the metal rule absoltuely ridiculous, and it makes little sense if you think about it and aren't trying to explain it away and telling people "you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way".
I did read why it's written this way. And I found the explanation makes little sense. The only thing druids are not allowed to with metal is either hold a shield made of it, or wear armor made of it. It just seems like an excuse.
I don't even play druids (although I did build one around the concept of "no metal whatsoever" and also, vegan). I simply find the metal rule absoltuely ridiculous, and it makes little sense if you think about it and aren't trying to explain it away and telling people "you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way".
There are no shortage of rules in D&D that don't particularly make sense, so I don't even bother. The important question is "do druids need the power increase that is granted by unrestricted medium armor usage" and the answer is "no, druids are fine even without it".
I don't even play druids (although I did build one around the concept of "no metal whatsoever" and also, vegan). I simply find the metal rule absoltuely ridiculous, and it makes little sense if you think about it and aren't trying to explain it away and telling people "you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way".
There are no shortage of rules in D&D that don't particularly make sense, so I don't even bother. The important question is "do druids need the power increase that is granted by unrestricted medium armor usage" and the answer is "no, druids are fine even without it".
It's not even that big of a boost imo.... It's like +1 AC more in most cases and you get DIS on stealth so in a lot of cases it's a wash
But yeah there is a ton of stuff that makes no sense... Like Rogues getting longsword prof. When they can't even use them with Dex or get sneak attack with them.
I...don't think you're using the term "hybrid" correctly.
Druids, historically, began as an offshoot of the priest class from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But in practice, they're more like nature wizards. In 5th edition, it's still a class with full spellcasting progression. It's still capable of increasing its defenses, like a wizard with mage armor, by wearing armor and wielding a shield. It also has iconic spells like barkskin, and both druids and wizards, along with a smattering of others, can cast stoneskin. And this "hybrid" status is best exemplified by the Circle of the Land. It gains an additional cantrip, the near equivalent of Divine Domain spells, and the equivalent of Arcane Recovery. And that's just all their 2nd level features.
And none of this means they can't deal considerable damage and healing. Whether they're the "best" at any given role can vary from encounter to encounter. Not every bard or cleric is a better at magical healing, and not every sorcerer or wizard is better at dealing damage through their spells.
You may not think it hurts anything to allow for metal armor, and you're entitled to your opinion. Having said that, you've repeatedly dug in your heels; rather than listen and respond to the points others have made. You do not appear interested in having a discussion, and now you've resorted to calling people "butt hurt" for disagreeing with you.
Don't do that.
Going by memory here, but I think Druids began as a Wizard subclass, and you had to be “true neutral.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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).
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.
Sure - instead of do way with an unreasonable 'personal opinion' do away with the medium prof hahah wow sure...
to me the simple fact stems to this.
Racial features were designed to make certain races better suited for certain classes. A firbolg makes a great cleric or druid - because it stars with 2 to wisdom.
Tasha's fixed that - ANYONE can do ANYTHING - why? because just because innately a race that is not wise could not mean that 1 wise one didn't make its way into the race and want to become more
Forcing druids to wear no metal is the same thing. Just let us play our druid wearing whatever we want, as long as we have the proficiency to do so. Druids are the 'hybrid' class - they don't deal the most damage in combat, they don't heal the most with their heals. They are proficient in Medium armor and if a druid choose to not wear the hide of an animal instead metal who does that hurt?
- the answer? no one, except those who are so butt hurt or live in the old world that they can't allow us to just play and have fun AND stay safe all at the same time.
I...don't think you're using the term "hybrid" correctly.
Druids, historically, began as an offshoot of the priest class from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But in practice, they're more like nature wizards. In 5th edition, it's still a class with full spellcasting progression. It's still capable of increasing its defenses, like a wizard with mage armor, by wearing armor and wielding a shield. It also has iconic spells like barkskin, and both druids and wizards, along with a smattering of others, can cast stoneskin. And this "hybrid" status is best exemplified by the Circle of the Land. It gains an additional cantrip, the near equivalent of Divine Domain spells, and the equivalent of Arcane Recovery. And that's just all their 2nd level features.
And none of this means they can't deal considerable damage and healing. Whether they're the "best" at any given role can vary from encounter to encounter. Not every bard or cleric is a better at magical healing, and not every sorcerer or wizard is better at dealing damage through their spells.
You may not think it hurts anything to allow for metal armor, and you're entitled to your opinion. Having said that, you've repeatedly dug in your heels; rather than listen and respond to the points others have made. You do not appear interested in having a discussion, and now you've resorted to calling people "butt hurt" for disagreeing with you.
Don't do that.
hahaha - I am so very very sorry to those who were upset by my posts and thoughts on the subject. I was stating my opinion, and last I checked, I have the right to do so. Whatever, you all have a very great and happy life, and again so sorry to anyone I offended by my opinion. I was not offended by any others, just earnestly disagree, but obviously that makes me the bad guy. lol peace - joy and happiness to all.
I think it's kind of silly druids "can't" or "won't" wear metal armor considering metal is, in fact, a thing found in nature. The restrictions of armor in general are weird to me. Like I feel a wizard should be able to wear full plate armor if they want to. It won't make casting hard or anything. The only restriction that makes sense to me is the one on monks. Monks actually make sense since they need to have full flexibility and agility so I fully understand them not being weighted down at all and having the agility to block attacks.
But metal is a thing that exists in nature. To the point that there are dragons with scales similar or identical to the properties of known metals. One could argue your metal armor as a druid is made out of the hide/scales of a metallic dragon.
I mean, I wouldn't call people "butthurt" like the chap above for sticking to old rules but to me, the old rules don't really make any sense to me. Why would metal sever their connection to the earth when metal is part of the earth? When the very core of any solid non-gas planets is metal. When the stars are metal (and gas). It just seems like a purely aesthetic choice meant to make druids seem kind of snobby. But it also kind of makes it hard for one to play, say, a vegan druid, if their options for armor are exclusively hide-based and you don't want to flavour hide armor as plant-based because the system calls it hide armor. The metal-avoidance could be retconned as basically a combination of tradition and old wives' tales and general disdain for advanced society. I think it makes perfect sense to just let druids use metal armor, or at the very least, on paper they do but it's flavoured as non-metal (which is a DM choice, generally).
I get it, but at the same time, it just... doesn't really make as much sense as I'd like.
Part of it is balance. You can still carry a shield, which is a pretty sizable AC boost and you're still a full caster with a number of powerful abilities. Just think of it as light armor + shield proficiency. And later in game you may get a special non-metal medium armor. Just like as a Wizard you may get Elven Chain, or you may not. As a DM a special medium armor is an bone I'm immediate looking at throwing a Druid player, for later in the game. But you may not get it. The Druid is plenty strong without it.
Not wanting to wear animal skin as a Druid is a character concept I can totally get on board with. You can just reflavor it. Example: Instead of studded leather, your armor is made of multiple-layered, tightly woven vines from a rare, ancient line of plant that is indigenous to your home world.
Metallic ore is found in nature. Worked metal is not. Ore is subjected to intense heat to extract impurities so only the desired metal remains. This process removes metal's connection to nature by producing an unnatural substance. This stands in contrast to working with natural fibers and materials. Leather armor, like cuir bouilli, didn't have anything taken away. Rather, natural substances were added.
I think you're looking a bit too big (i.e. cosmological) to justify something for your own personal preferences. And if that's how you want to run things in your games at home, that's your purview. That said, I do think you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way.
I would be tempted to rewrite the rule as "Proficiency: non-metallic Light and Medium Armor", thus allowing wearing other armor types if they acquire the proficiency from elsewhere.
There's little need to be so rude. I'm not trying to "justify" anything for any preferences. Simply that I find metal is, yes, part of nature. I would argue that ADDING to a substance, natural or otherwise, is no different than REMOVING things from them. Either way you are making something not found exactly in that way in nature, which is supposedly the whole argument behind why druids can't use metal armor. When removing impurities in metal, you're not severing its connection to nature because it's still at its core the same thing. Iron ore is still iron. I don't view it as any different than casting Purify Food and Drink. There is nothing stopping that spell with how it is written from being used to remove poison from poisonous berries, plants, or meat from a poisonous beast. And it is a Druid spell. Removing that which is poison from them is, I think, similar to removing impurities in metal.
Very importantly to the point about how iron is not "natural" but only in armor form, Druids have access to Reincarnate. "The magic fashions a new body for the creature to inhabit, which likely causes the creature's race to change... The reincarnated creature recalls its former life and experiences. It retains the capabilities it had in its original form, except it exchanges its original race for the new one and changes its racial traits accordingly". So the deceased becomes something completely new, with only the thing that makes them who they are intact (their memories). This also feels like the same thing as taking ore and basically doing the equivilent of distilling it to just iron.
Druids are not blocked from wearing metal. Druids can wear metal jewelery. They can wear metal buckles and charms. They are free to carry around copper telescopes and coin. They can use metal weapons, which I thought they couldn't until recently due to the block about armor. Heck, they can wear metal boots if they want to. Druids are allowed to possess as much metal as they choose, they just can't use shields or armor made out of it. Heat Metal is also a druid spell. So by using your own logic they are making things unnatural with their own magic. If they aren't, then they should be able to make metal armor with Heat Metal if it doesn't remove impurities. You also shouldn't be allowed to play a Warforged druid, but you can. If druids were entirely barred from wearing or handling metal outside coins (kept in a special bag or something), I would agree, perhaps, it makes perfect sense it interferes with their magic or some such. But it doesn't. No. A druid can wear or carry as much metal as they want, as long as it is not armor, and they are free to heat up metal which, as you say, removes impurities and makes metal unnatural. And this, for me, means the block on metal armor and weapons is very arbitrary and for folx like you who want to justify archaeic rules.
I don't even play druids (although I did build one around the concept of "no metal whatsoever" and also, vegan). I simply find the metal rule absoltuely ridiculous, and it makes little sense if you think about it and aren't trying to explain it away and telling people "you should spend less time saying it doesn't make sense and more time asking why it's written this way".
I did read why it's written this way. And I found the explanation makes little sense. The only thing druids are not allowed to with metal is either hold a shield made of it, or wear armor made of it. It just seems like an excuse.
There are no shortage of rules in D&D that don't particularly make sense, so I don't even bother. The important question is "do druids need the power increase that is granted by unrestricted medium armor usage" and the answer is "no, druids are fine even without it".
It's not even that big of a boost imo.... It's like +1 AC more in most cases and you get DIS on stealth so in a lot of cases it's a wash
But yeah there is a ton of stuff that makes no sense... Like Rogues getting longsword prof. When they can't even use them with Dex or get sneak attack with them.
Going by memory here, but I think Druids began as a Wizard subclass, and you had to be “true neutral.”