Studded leather armor is described as leather armor with rivets or studs, which are made of metal. Is this just an allowance for Druid players to chase a slightly better ac? Or is there some kind of lore explanation for druids wearing armor with a little metal?
The no metal restriction is not for balance reasons anyways, so it does not matter. It's unwelcome fluff only.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't like the idea that fluff is unwelcome or that a sentence that has mechanical impact on the game is fluff. This isn't some over-optimized mmo where fluff is the stuff that keeps you from pressing your buttons faster. Like all things, a DM can decide to play it differently at their table, but the sentence in the class is plainly stated.
Sure the devs have come out and said it isn't for mechanical balance, but they also didn't say the line didn't exist. They said you are free to change it in your game. They say exactly the same thing for all the rules in the system.
Beyond that, I think the common route is that you could find armor with bone studs. That idea is based, I think, on a misunderstanding of studded leather armor which (as I understand) was really made up of metal plates studded to the back side of a leather coat. Nonetheless, that is the most commonly recommended way to get non-metal studded leather armor without just throwing out part of the game world.
The DMG has a few tables of properties of magic items. In the Minor Properties table, 13 gives "strange material" which can be used to circumvent any problem with metal magic armor or shields given to a druid. I think giving that property to too many mundane items might make your world feel a bit too magic infused, but it is another possibility (such as bone-studs).
A statement like "A druid will not wear metal armor" is 100% fluff. I do not need WotC to tell me what my character does, and does not "like" to do. DMs do not need to be confused by this kind of thing. Too many players get screwed over (and that is exactly what it is) by playing a druid and the DM takes that stupid, fluff throw away line, and refuses to let a player get an armor upgrade that they /should/ be eligible to get, especially in adventurer's league where the DM is forced to stick to the rules...and they interpret that stupid, unwelcome fluff line, as a rule.
I've played characters before with medium armor who /only/ wore chain shirts. I could easily upgrade to scale, but that's not what the character vision was. I made the choice to not upgrade to the best armor. I didn't need WotC to make that choice for me. They should 100% stick to mechanics, and let the players come up with what their character will or will not do.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
A statement like "A druid will not wear metal armor" is 100% fluff. I do not need WotC to tell me what my character does, and does not "like" to do. DMs do not need to be confused by this kind of thing. Too many players get screwed over (and that is exactly what it is) by playing a druid and the DM takes that stupid, fluff throw away line, and refuses to let a player get an armor upgrade that they /should/ be eligible to get, especially in adventurer's league where the DM is forced to stick to the rules...and they interpret that stupid, unwelcome fluff line, as a rule.
I've played characters before with medium armor who /only/ wore chain shirts. I could easily upgrade to scale, but that's not what the character vision was. I made the choice to not upgrade to the best armor. I didn't need WotC to make that choice for me. They should 100% stick to mechanics, and let the players come up with what their character will or will not do.
At a certain level, I totally agree, do what is fun in your game. But my question has to do with the internal lore offered by Wizards. They've had this "druids don't like metal" trope since the first edition. It seems really contradictory to include it again, but then hedge and say "oh, but one kind of armor that uses metal is ok lore-wise."
I'm not here to argue whether a sentence in the druid armor proficiencies that says what they will do and nothing about likes and dislikes is part of the rules. If you decide that it is fluff for your game, that is a fine house rule. I am offering the ways supported by the text on the page to achieve the result the OP wanted.
It's not a house rule even a little. The rules do not say that a druid cannot wear metal armor. That's the entirety of the problem. Since the rules do not state that, it's fluff, and unwelcome fluff at that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I will say it one more time for clarity. I am writing for what is on the page: use alternate materials if you want non-metal armors for your druid. It is up to your DM to change this particular limitation otherwise.
it is not a particular limitation. It is not a RULE that a DM needs to adjudicate. It is often interpreted to BE a rule, but it is not a rule. If it were a RULE, it would say a druid may not wear metal armor. It does not say that. Druids are 100% RAW ALLOWED to wear metal armor because it does not say they CAN'T.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
it is not a particular limitation. It is not a RULE that a DM needs to adjudicate. It is often interpreted to BE a rule, but it is not a rule. If it were a RULE, it would say a druid may not wear metal armor. It does not say that. Druids are 100% RAW ALLOWED to wear metal armor because it does not say they CAN'T.
Studded leather armor is described as leather armor with rivets or studs, which are made of metal.
not really:
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.
Rivets are specifically made of metal. I guess “spikes” could theoretically be made of bone or wood, but metal would be the s the assumption for something with “studs” which are also metal.
Whether the statement "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is in the book is not the question right? So then the question is whether that stands as something your DM would let you ignore, whether it is a rule, a bit of fluff, or a part of the default game world, or just an explosion of text. No matter which of those it is, there is only one person who can help the player decide: the DM at the table. In that respect, it makes no difference whether it is a rule or not. That is what I've said all along.
will not is not a rule. cannot is a rule. will not is a choice, which makes it fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
will not is not a rule. cannot is a rule. will not is a choice, which makes it fluff.
Tell that to anyone in the military
Or any parent. Usually the succession of language is "You can't do that." -> "You cannot do that." -> "You WILL NOT do that."
But that's beyond the point. It doesn't matter if it is fluff. You still should have DM permission to change it. Clearly crzyhawk didn't read what I said.
Studded leather armor is described as leather armor with rivets or studs, which are made of metal. Is this just an allowance for Druid players to chase a slightly better ac? Or is there some kind of lore explanation for druids wearing armor with a little metal?
Much like the proficiency with scimitars, it's a leftover from earlier editions.
But disregarding that, no one has questioned if druids wear belts when belt buckles are commonly made of metal, so the reasonable interpretation of "armor made of metal" is "armor made mostly of metal", not "armor featuring any amount of metal".
Saying it's not a rule is ridiculous. It's not in the description of the druid class, which is the only "fluff" or "flavor." It is posted under their Proficiencies; it is a rule of the class, the fact that it says "will not" instead of "can not" does not change this.
That said, this is a world of magic and wonder. There's no reason there shouldn't be armors available that aren't made of metal, even if the standard for that type of armor is made of metal. Additionally, as Twooshort said, it's silly to assume they avoid all metal; clearly they use weapons that, while able to have wood and leather hilts, have metal blades. They just don't want to be touching it. In my campaign world, the reason they don't is because they don't want to be caught by Heat Metal, which all druids know the dangers of.
There is no ban on metal armor. No matter how many people fight for or against it. This was a rule in previous editions. To the point that Druids lost their powers for as long as they wore it and for 24 hours after. meaning they could do very little when they had it on. This is no longer an issue but has remained as a tradition of non-consequence.
That being said, The studs in studded leather armor do not have to be metal. They are a reinforcing material. They could just as easily be something like bone since the same places that you get the leather from are likely to have a lot of those as well. Which is why Druids can wear Studded leather armor. They can even wear better armors if they can find them made of alternate materials without a problem. druids used to love things like DragonScale armor or had ways to make stone or wooden armor viable because of these reasons. Ankheg platemail became a thing partly because of druids.
Above and beyond that. There have been distinctions in several editions that even shows up a little bit in 5th edition that talks about how Something that is not primarily made up of metal does not count as made of metal for those kinds of restrictions. Making the issue fairly moot anyway.
There is no ban on metal armor. No matter how many people fight for or against it. This was a rule in previous editions. To the point that Druids lost their powers for as long as they wore it and for 24 hours after. meaning they could do very little when they had it on. This is no longer an issue but has remained as a tradition of non-consequence.
...
Above and beyond that. There have been distinctions in several editions that even shows up a little bit in 5th edition that talks about how Something that is not primarily made up of metal does not count as made of metal for those kinds of restrictions. Making the issue fairly moot anyway.
Although overall a rather toothless argument (depending mostly on opinion and different games -- 5e is not a previous edition -- rather than the text in the PHB or any advice of the authors on the subject), this is fine as long as your DM is OK with altering your groups use of that text in the Druid section listed under proficiencies with mechanical impact on Druid characters that is plainly stated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Studded leather armor is described as leather armor with rivets or studs, which are made of metal. Is this just an allowance for Druid players to chase a slightly better ac? Or is there some kind of lore explanation for druids wearing armor with a little metal?
The no metal restriction is not for balance reasons anyways, so it does not matter. It's unwelcome fluff only.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't like the idea that fluff is unwelcome or that a sentence that has mechanical impact on the game is fluff. This isn't some over-optimized mmo where fluff is the stuff that keeps you from pressing your buttons faster. Like all things, a DM can decide to play it differently at their table, but the sentence in the class is plainly stated.
Sure the devs have come out and said it isn't for mechanical balance, but they also didn't say the line didn't exist. They said you are free to change it in your game. They say exactly the same thing for all the rules in the system.
Beyond that, I think the common route is that you could find armor with bone studs. That idea is based, I think, on a misunderstanding of studded leather armor which (as I understand) was really made up of metal plates studded to the back side of a leather coat. Nonetheless, that is the most commonly recommended way to get non-metal studded leather armor without just throwing out part of the game world.
The DMG has a few tables of properties of magic items. In the Minor Properties table, 13 gives "strange material" which can be used to circumvent any problem with metal magic armor or shields given to a druid. I think giving that property to too many mundane items might make your world feel a bit too magic infused, but it is another possibility (such as bone-studs).
A statement like "A druid will not wear metal armor" is 100% fluff. I do not need WotC to tell me what my character does, and does not "like" to do. DMs do not need to be confused by this kind of thing. Too many players get screwed over (and that is exactly what it is) by playing a druid and the DM takes that stupid, fluff throw away line, and refuses to let a player get an armor upgrade that they /should/ be eligible to get, especially in adventurer's league where the DM is forced to stick to the rules...and they interpret that stupid, unwelcome fluff line, as a rule.
I've played characters before with medium armor who /only/ wore chain shirts. I could easily upgrade to scale, but that's not what the character vision was. I made the choice to not upgrade to the best armor. I didn't need WotC to make that choice for me. They should 100% stick to mechanics, and let the players come up with what their character will or will not do.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
At a certain level, I totally agree, do what is fun in your game. But my question has to do with the internal lore offered by Wizards. They've had this "druids don't like metal" trope since the first edition. It seems really contradictory to include it again, but then hedge and say "oh, but one kind of armor that uses metal is ok lore-wise."
I'm not here to argue whether a sentence in the druid armor proficiencies that says what they will do and nothing about likes and dislikes is part of the rules. If you decide that it is fluff for your game, that is a fine house rule. I am offering the ways supported by the text on the page to achieve the result the OP wanted.
It's not a house rule even a little. The rules do not say that a druid cannot wear metal armor. That's the entirety of the problem. Since the rules do not state that, it's fluff, and unwelcome fluff at that.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I will say it one more time for clarity. I am writing for what is on the page: use alternate materials if you want non-metal armors for your druid. It is up to your DM to change this particular limitation otherwise.
not really:
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
I will say this one more time:
it is not a particular limitation. It is not a RULE that a DM needs to adjudicate. It is often interpreted to BE a rule, but it is not a rule. If it were a RULE, it would say a druid may not wear metal armor. It does not say that. Druids are 100% RAW ALLOWED to wear metal armor because it does not say they CAN'T.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
nah, you're going to say it a lot more times. o.O
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
Rivets are specifically made of metal. I guess “spikes” could theoretically be made of bone or wood, but metal would be the s the assumption for something with “studs” which are also metal.
Whether the statement "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is in the book is not the question right? So then the question is whether that stands as something your DM would let you ignore, whether it is a rule, a bit of fluff, or a part of the default game world, or just an explosion of text. No matter which of those it is, there is only one person who can help the player decide: the DM at the table. In that respect, it makes no difference whether it is a rule or not. That is what I've said all along.
will not is not a rule. cannot is a rule. will not is a choice, which makes it fluff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Tell that to anyone in the military
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
Or any parent. Usually the succession of language is "You can't do that." -> "You cannot do that." -> "You WILL NOT do that."
But that's beyond the point. It doesn't matter if it is fluff. You still should have DM permission to change it. Clearly crzyhawk didn't read what I said.
Much like the proficiency with scimitars, it's a leftover from earlier editions.
But disregarding that, no one has questioned if druids wear belts when belt buckles are commonly made of metal, so the reasonable interpretation of "armor made of metal" is "armor made mostly of metal", not "armor featuring any amount of metal".
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
Saying it's not a rule is ridiculous. It's not in the description of the druid class, which is the only "fluff" or "flavor." It is posted under their Proficiencies; it is a rule of the class, the fact that it says "will not" instead of "can not" does not change this.
That said, this is a world of magic and wonder. There's no reason there shouldn't be armors available that aren't made of metal, even if the standard for that type of armor is made of metal. Additionally, as Twooshort said, it's silly to assume they avoid all metal; clearly they use weapons that, while able to have wood and leather hilts, have metal blades. They just don't want to be touching it. In my campaign world, the reason they don't is because they don't want to be caught by Heat Metal, which all druids know the dangers of.
There is no ban on metal armor. No matter how many people fight for or against it. This was a rule in previous editions. To the point that Druids lost their powers for as long as they wore it and for 24 hours after. meaning they could do very little when they had it on. This is no longer an issue but has remained as a tradition of non-consequence.
That being said, The studs in studded leather armor do not have to be metal. They are a reinforcing material. They could just as easily be something like bone since the same places that you get the leather from are likely to have a lot of those as well. Which is why Druids can wear Studded leather armor. They can even wear better armors if they can find them made of alternate materials without a problem. druids used to love things like DragonScale armor or had ways to make stone or wooden armor viable because of these reasons. Ankheg platemail became a thing partly because of druids.
Above and beyond that. There have been distinctions in several editions that even shows up a little bit in 5th edition that talks about how Something that is not primarily made up of metal does not count as made of metal for those kinds of restrictions. Making the issue fairly moot anyway.
Although overall a rather toothless argument (depending mostly on opinion and different games -- 5e is not a previous edition -- rather than the text in the PHB or any advice of the authors on the subject), this is fine as long as your DM is OK with altering your groups use of that text in the Druid section listed under proficiencies with mechanical impact on Druid characters that is plainly stated.