I just want to say this: IMO metal armor is not armor that has ANY bit of metal in it. So even if studded leather armor has metal in it (including plates), I don't think a druid would have a problem with it. It's not like druids are allergic to metal. We use metal weapons.
The core idea of the restriction is not forsaking what is natural in favor of the metallic/technological product of civilization. So wearing a suit of steel plate mail armor wouldn't feel right. But if you took a few steel plates and bound them in leather with studs, at least it's still incorporating natural armor. Most of the metal is hidden and wearing it you would see and feel mostly leather. So I don't think a druid would have a strong negative feeling about it. In a way, that type of armor shows how the natural can work with the civilized, technological world.
Finally, I actually like the restriction as long as DM's are willing to work with the druid player to have them acquire materials to craft higher AC armor from natural materials. Bones, scales, and even chitinous plates (my spore druid wears half-plate made from strange creatures found in the underdark). I had a DM once that kept trying to force me to wear hide armor, and it was very frustrating.
But you did happen to ignore a couple of relevant points:
Class requirements are written in the class descriptions.
That sentence does not say that paladins must be lawful good, they are listed as an example.
The context around that sentence in fact says the opposite: "Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment." and "For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos."
Several other classes are listed for other alignments, but no one claims that alignments are required for those classes.
That actually does show up in the game books, and we did discuss how to interpret it and how it can be used in the game.
Basically What the DM, and your character sheet says goes. DnD appeal is that anything can happen and that is where the restrictions being malleable is nice
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
Hopefully this helps!
I think you're on the right track. If we had to describe how "arcane" and "divine" magic work, they'd be pretty different. Arcane magic is like hacking the source code of the universe, warping reality to your whims. Conversely, divine magic is manipulating the ambient magic in an already magical world; not unlike how Jedi Knights use the Force. Or how a cook mixes eggs, flour, and water to make batter/dough for baking. It's a big part of why divine casters tend to use wisdom as their spellcasting ability. They're in tune with the magic omnipresent in the world. They're aware of how it ebbs and flows around and between everything in creation.
As I see it, the differences between clerics and druids come down to how they're aware of the magic. In the Forgotten Realms, where the presence of deities is a known fact, clerics are aware of their god's influence on the world. It's this faith and awareness that allows them to use magic. Druids, while certainly capable of venerating a particular god, draw their power differently. For them, it's less about how a particular god influences the world and more how their myriad influences play off each other. And because of this focus on the natural magic in the world, they stick to wearing natural materials. This is done more out of tradition than an actual requirement. As has been pointed out before, druids of Mielikki had no such prohibition on metal armor back in 3rd edition.
But that was also more than 100 years before the current edition. And the PHB isn't written with the Forgotten Realms in mind, specifically, but is generically written to apply to any and all settings. (It does include four different world pantheons in Appendix B, after all.) By the RAI, the RAW prohibition on metal armor is part of the druid's story. This does not preclude, however, the druid from acquiring armor made of exotic materials. Dragon Scale Mail is detailed in the DMG, and a white version of it is in Horde of the Dragon Queen. Storm King's Thunder has multiple breastplates made of stone. The original Baldur's Gate games had plate armor made from Ankheg parts. I can easily see an armor of acid resistance, half plate being something the party makes after going hunting, or perhaps finds in a treasure horde.
I know I'm repeating myself a little, but I think it bears repeating.
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
JC describes it as a "taboo" against wearing metal armor, which implies that it's a cultural thing. "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor." The only thing that prevents druids from using metal armor is their choice.
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
JC describes it as a "taboo" against wearing metal armor, which implies that it's a cultural thing. "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor." The only thing that prevents druids from using metal armor is their choice.
People always seem to latch on to the wrong part of that advice, as I've already pointed out in this thread. The only actionable advice in his thread is the same advice about changing any part of the game: the final decision is up to the DM. The rest he frames as not "an individual's choice to embrace or disregard as they choose" but rather "part of the choice that makes a character a druid."
Druids can wear anything they want. This has been the case in every edition of D&D so far. The only difference is that in some editions, what they want to wear may impose more penalties than in others. But saying they “can” wear studded leather in 5E (or any other editions) is just stating the obvious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
JC describes it as a "taboo" against wearing metal armor, which implies that it's a cultural thing. "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor." The only thing that prevents druids from using metal armor is their choice.
People always seem to latch on to the wrong part of that advice, as I've already pointed out in this thread. The only actionable advice in his thread is the same advice about changing any part of the game: the final decision is up to the DM. The rest he frames as not "an individual's choice to embrace or disregard as they choose" but rather "part of the choice that makes a character a druid."
I actually think the whole advice column is pretty solid. It doesn't provide a cut and dry answer beyond the ultimate answer of "ask your dm", but I think that's okay. And I don't think it has to either be a personal choice that can be flippantly discarded or a fait accompli as you frame it.
Consider a hypothetical situation wherein a druid was forced to wear metal half plate armor for a disguise in order to sneak into a camp. I think the druid would dislike wearing the armor and would want to get out of it whenever possible. But I don't at all think it would somehow strip you of your druidic powers or block your connection to nature.
Consider a hypothetical situation wherein a druid was forced to wear metal half plate armor for a disguise in order to sneak into a camp. I think the druid would dislike wearing the armor and would want to get out of it whenever possible. But I don't at all think it would somehow strip you of your druidic powers or block your connection to nature.
Consider what happens to the sorcerer in that same situation. Consider why the druid doesn't use its class features or spells to help it through this situation. Hypotheticals don't usually interest me; they're at best only hypothetically relevant and often contrived.
Consider a hypothetical situation wherein a druid was forced to wear metal half plate armor for a disguise in order to sneak into a camp. I think the druid would dislike wearing the armor and would want to get out of it whenever possible. But I don't at all think it would somehow strip you of your druidic powers or block your connection to nature.
Consider what happens to the sorcerer in that same situation. Consider why the druid doesn't use its class features or spells to help it through this situation. Hypotheticals don't usually interest me; they're at best only hypothetically relevant and often contrived.
With all due respect, I don't think your counter-hypothetical holds any water. This may be your point, as you have also said hypotheticals don't usually interest you, but I find it unhelpful nonetheless.
Druids don't have access to disguise self, so I'm curious as to what other magical solution you have in mind. As for comparing the druid and sorcerer, only one of those has innate proficiency with medium armor. This means the sorcerer, in the same situation, would be unable to cast spells at all; unless they acquired the proficiency from another source. The druid wouldn't, by RAW, lose access to their spellcasting, but the DM and setting may alter this somewhat.
A hypothetical druid not only has disguise self from a feat, they also have alter self from their Thousand Forms subclass feature. A different hypothetical druid might even have a short range teleport such as the Hidden Paths subclass feature. Some hypothetical druids have passwall, misty step or greater invisibility. Plus all druids have wildshape and a myriad of other spells (such as charm person, tree stride, or pass without trace) that might solve the same problem without them actually having to wear metal armor, which they will not do.
Not only has your solution to this hypothetical broken a class feature for your druid while ignoring what other ways that druid might solve the problem, you have turned your other casters into commoners wielding daggers, and possibly trashed the AC of some of your other party members. All without even considering what those other classes might hypothetically be able to do to help you through the same problem.
I've changed my mind; hypotheticals are entirely contrived and never as helpful as their author proposes.
A hypothetical druid not only has disguise self from a feat, they also have alter self from their Thousand Forms subclass feature. A different hypothetical druid might even have a short range teleport such as the Hidden Paths subclass feature. Plus all druids have wildshape and a myriad of other spells (such as charm person, tree stride, or pass without trace) that might solve the same problem without them actually having to wear metal armor, which they will not do.
Not only has your solution to this hypothetical broken a class feature for your druid while ignoring what other ways that druid might solve the problem, you have turned your other casters into commoners wielding daggers, and possibly trashed the AC of some of your other party members. All without even considering what those other classes might hypothetically be able to do to help you through the same problem.
I've changed my mind; hypotheticals are entirely contrived and never as helpful as their author proposes.
Okay, let's back up a minute. I didn't turn sorcerers into commoners wielding daggers. You brought them into this discussion, now own it.
Second, you don't get to try to undermine a hypothetical by injecting your own. That defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. Yes, hypotheticals are thought experiments. If you keep adding variables, then your entire purpose is to wreck what's being attempted. And such disingenuous efforts should not be tolerated by anyone. You don't have to like hypotheticals, but you don't need to actively sabotage them either. Just say you won't participate and walk away.
But, since you didn't, let's talk about it. No class feature is broken by a druid donning [Tooltip Not Found], which a druid would obviously prefer not to do, but at least you started thinking through the problem. Disguise self is only acquirable from a feat or multiclassing, so that's out. (And shame on you for bringing it up in the first place.) Alter self won't change clothes, so without a uniform, including the aforementioned scale armor, that's no good. Charm person will make targets friendly for a time, and might get you past the front door, but you're on a ticking clock. (Not in of itself a bad thing, as the party is likely on one anyway.) Pass without trace could work. Tree stride is an interesting suggestion, but it's also limited and not without risk.
Wild Shape is pretty solid, though. Most animals can go unnoticed, and as long as it's not an anti-magic area it should work just fine. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Okay, let's back up a minute. I didn't turn sorcerers into commoners wielding daggers. You brought them into this discussion, now own it.
Second, you don't get to try to undermine a hypothetical by injecting your own. That defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. Yes, hypotheticals are thought experiments. If you keep adding variables, then your entire purpose is to wreck what's being attempted. And such disingenuous efforts should not be tolerated by anyone. You don't have to like hypotheticals, but you don't need to actively sabotage them either. Just say you won't participate and walk away.
Again, this situation is contrived. If you choose to contrive a situation (or participate in discussion on it), then you should consider contrived solutions. Ignoring those is disingenuous, and telling a poster than their solution to a hypothetical problem is disingenuous because it relies on hypothetical solution is laughable not to mention dishonest. I will no longer participate in answering hypotheticals in this thread.
Okay, let's back up a minute. I didn't turn sorcerers into commoners wielding daggers. You brought them into this discussion, now own it.
Second, you don't get to try to undermine a hypothetical by injecting your own. That defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. Yes, hypotheticals are thought experiments. If you keep adding variables, then your entire purpose is to wreck what's being attempted. And such disingenuous efforts should not be tolerated by anyone. You don't have to like hypotheticals, but you don't need to actively sabotage them either. Just say you won't participate and walk away.
Again, this situation is contrived. If you choose to contrive a situation, then you should consider contrived solutions. Ignoring those is disingenuous, and telling a poster than their solution to a hypothetical problem is disingenuous because it relies on hypothetical solution is laughable not to mention dishonest. I will no longer participate in answering hypotheticals in this thread.
I think that's for the best. In fact, you should probably avoid them, in general.
Okay, let's back up a minute. I didn't turn sorcerers into commoners wielding daggers. You brought them into this discussion, now own it.
Second, you don't get to try to undermine a hypothetical by injecting your own. That defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. Yes, hypotheticals are thought experiments. If you keep adding variables, then your entire purpose is to wreck what's being attempted. And such disingenuous efforts should not be tolerated by anyone. You don't have to like hypotheticals, but you don't need to actively sabotage them either. Just say you won't participate and walk away.
Again, this situation is contrived. If you choose to contrive a situation, then you should consider contrived solutions. Ignoring those is disingenuous, and telling a poster than their solution to a hypothetical problem is disingenuous because it relies on hypothetical solution is laughable not to mention dishonest. I will no longer participate in answering hypotheticals in this thread.
I think that's for the best. In fact, you should probably avoid them, in general.
The point was never that the hypothetical situation I proposed was the ONLY possible way to infiltrate the camp. So there was nothing wrong with his contrived solutions, it's just that they were irrelevant in the first place. It's like if someone asked you "If I put a gun to your head and made you say which of your children is your favorite, which one would you choose?" And you responded "I wouldn't choose, I would snatch the gun out of your hand and karate kick you in the face". Okay... sure there's no rule that you can't counter a hypothetical with another hypothetical, but that's an intellectually dishonest way of avoiding the issue IMO.
Intellectually dishonest is painting a little black box with one solution that doesn't exist and pretending that solving it is actually relevant. If my answer was bad, that's fine. So was the premise. (and my answer was designed to point that out)
A druid will not wear metal armor. "Gun to their head" what happens to a druid who wears metal armor? The rulebooks don't say. They don't have to, because druids will not wear metal armor.
"What happens if it actually happens anyway?" It's up to the DM what changes to the game your table makes. No solution on this forum can be the solution.
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?
Just to reiterate the original question, "metal armor" is not necessarily equivalent to "armor that includes any amount of metal". And while it's been pointed out that there are natural alternatives for rivets and studs, I would allow a druid to pick up generic studded armor from a shop in any case. Similarly, a belt with a metal buckle would also not be an issue. Druids aren't allergic to metal. We use metal scimitars without issue.
If the look and feel are natural, if the majority of the construction is from leather or other natural materials, then there's no issue IMO.
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?
Just to reiterate the original question, "metal armor" is not necessarily equivalent to "armor that includes any amount of metal". And while it's been pointed out that there are natural alternatives for rivets and studs, I would allow a druid to pick up generic studded armor from a shop in any case. Similarly, a belt with a metal buckle would also not be an issue. Druids aren't allergic to metal. We use metal scimitars without issue.
If the look and feel are natural, if the majority of the construction is from leather or other natural materials, then there's no issue IMO.
Exactly. It's a preference, not a prohibition. They can wear armor made of metal, they don't lack the ability. Technically, even a straight wizard can don full plate armor. Druids simply elect not to wear metal armor. It's a choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just want to say this: IMO metal armor is not armor that has ANY bit of metal in it. So even if studded leather armor has metal in it (including plates), I don't think a druid would have a problem with it. It's not like druids are allergic to metal. We use metal weapons.
The core idea of the restriction is not forsaking what is natural in favor of the metallic/technological product of civilization. So wearing a suit of steel plate mail armor wouldn't feel right. But if you took a few steel plates and bound them in leather with studs, at least it's still incorporating natural armor. Most of the metal is hidden and wearing it you would see and feel mostly leather. So I don't think a druid would have a strong negative feeling about it. In a way, that type of armor shows how the natural can work with the civilized, technological world.
Finally, I actually like the restriction as long as DM's are willing to work with the druid player to have them acquire materials to craft higher AC armor from natural materials. Bones, scales, and even chitinous plates (my spore druid wears half-plate made from strange creatures found in the underdark). I had a DM once that kept trying to force me to wear hide armor, and it was very frustrating.
Basically What the DM, and your character sheet says goes. DnD appeal is that anything can happen and that is where the restrictions being malleable is nice
So, ignoring most of the stuff above, I think it has to do with what it is primarily made of. Because druids work with nature energy for their powers, they draw energy from everything around them, including their clothes/armor. Metal is something that is originally from nature, forged and worked with, separating the natural energy from it and leaving the product as "dead", or no energy left in the product, which is why druids "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". There is no energy left in the metal for them to draw energy from.
Now, Studded Armor is primarily made with leather, with a small portion of it being made of metal, and that is just the rivets. Druids can absolutely draw energy from the leather made from it, even though it has small metallic rivets to keep it together. That's why, I personally, believe that druids can use studded armor, even though it has a portion of it made from metal.
Hopefully this helps!
I think you're on the right track. If we had to describe how "arcane" and "divine" magic work, they'd be pretty different. Arcane magic is like hacking the source code of the universe, warping reality to your whims. Conversely, divine magic is manipulating the ambient magic in an already magical world; not unlike how Jedi Knights use the Force. Or how a cook mixes eggs, flour, and water to make batter/dough for baking. It's a big part of why divine casters tend to use wisdom as their spellcasting ability. They're in tune with the magic omnipresent in the world. They're aware of how it ebbs and flows around and between everything in creation.
As I see it, the differences between clerics and druids come down to how they're aware of the magic. In the Forgotten Realms, where the presence of deities is a known fact, clerics are aware of their god's influence on the world. It's this faith and awareness that allows them to use magic. Druids, while certainly capable of venerating a particular god, draw their power differently. For them, it's less about how a particular god influences the world and more how their myriad influences play off each other. And because of this focus on the natural magic in the world, they stick to wearing natural materials. This is done more out of tradition than an actual requirement. As has been pointed out before, druids of Mielikki had no such prohibition on metal armor back in 3rd edition.
But that was also more than 100 years before the current edition. And the PHB isn't written with the Forgotten Realms in mind, specifically, but is generically written to apply to any and all settings. (It does include four different world pantheons in Appendix B, after all.) By the RAI, the RAW prohibition on metal armor is part of the druid's story. This does not preclude, however, the druid from acquiring armor made of exotic materials. Dragon Scale Mail is detailed in the DMG, and a white version of it is in Horde of the Dragon Queen. Storm King's Thunder has multiple breastplates made of stone. The original Baldur's Gate games had plate armor made from Ankheg parts. I can easily see an armor of acid resistance, half plate being something the party makes after going hunting, or perhaps finds in a treasure horde.
I know I'm repeating myself a little, but I think it bears repeating.
Huh? "Draw energy" from leather?
Oh, and not a bit.
I don't think this is how it works at all. If this were the case, then druids wouldn't use metal weapons either. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
JC describes it as a "taboo" against wearing metal armor, which implies that it's a cultural thing. "The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor." The only thing that prevents druids from using metal armor is their choice.
People always seem to latch on to the wrong part of that advice, as I've already pointed out in this thread. The only actionable advice in his thread is the same advice about changing any part of the game: the final decision is up to the DM. The rest he frames as not "an individual's choice to embrace or disregard as they choose" but rather "part of the choice that makes a character a druid."
Druids can wear anything they want. This has been the case in every edition of D&D so far. The only difference is that in some editions, what they want to wear may impose more penalties than in others. But saying they “can” wear studded leather in 5E (or any other editions) is just stating the obvious.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I actually think the whole advice column is pretty solid. It doesn't provide a cut and dry answer beyond the ultimate answer of "ask your dm", but I think that's okay. And I don't think it has to either be a personal choice that can be flippantly discarded or a fait accompli as you frame it.
Consider a hypothetical situation wherein a druid was forced to wear metal half plate armor for a disguise in order to sneak into a camp. I think the druid would dislike wearing the armor and would want to get out of it whenever possible. But I don't at all think it would somehow strip you of your druidic powers or block your connection to nature.
Consider what happens to the sorcerer in that same situation. Consider why the druid doesn't use its class features or spells to help it through this situation. Hypotheticals don't usually interest me; they're at best only hypothetically relevant and often contrived.
With all due respect, I don't think your counter-hypothetical holds any water. This may be your point, as you have also said hypotheticals don't usually interest you, but I find it unhelpful nonetheless.
Druids don't have access to disguise self, so I'm curious as to what other magical solution you have in mind. As for comparing the druid and sorcerer, only one of those has innate proficiency with medium armor. This means the sorcerer, in the same situation, would be unable to cast spells at all; unless they acquired the proficiency from another source. The druid wouldn't, by RAW, lose access to their spellcasting, but the DM and setting may alter this somewhat.
A hypothetical druid not only has disguise self from a feat, they also have alter self from their Thousand Forms subclass feature. A different hypothetical druid might even have a short range teleport such as the Hidden Paths subclass feature. Some hypothetical druids have passwall, misty step or greater invisibility. Plus all druids have wildshape and a myriad of other spells (such as charm person, tree stride, or pass without trace) that might solve the same problem without them actually having to wear metal armor, which they will not do.
Not only has your solution to this hypothetical broken a class feature for your druid while ignoring what other ways that druid might solve the problem, you have turned your other casters into commoners wielding daggers, and possibly trashed the AC of some of your other party members. All without even considering what those other classes might hypothetically be able to do to help you through the same problem.
I've changed my mind; hypotheticals are entirely contrived and never as helpful as their author proposes.
Okay, let's back up a minute. I didn't turn sorcerers into commoners wielding daggers. You brought them into this discussion, now own it.
Second, you don't get to try to undermine a hypothetical by injecting your own. That defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. Yes, hypotheticals are thought experiments. If you keep adding variables, then your entire purpose is to wreck what's being attempted. And such disingenuous efforts should not be tolerated by anyone. You don't have to like hypotheticals, but you don't need to actively sabotage them either. Just say you won't participate and walk away.
But, since you didn't, let's talk about it. No class feature is broken by a druid donning [Tooltip Not Found], which a druid would obviously prefer not to do, but at least you started thinking through the problem. Disguise self is only acquirable from a feat or multiclassing, so that's out. (And shame on you for bringing it up in the first place.) Alter self won't change clothes, so without a uniform, including the aforementioned scale armor, that's no good. Charm person will make targets friendly for a time, and might get you past the front door, but you're on a ticking clock. (Not in of itself a bad thing, as the party is likely on one anyway.) Pass without trace could work. Tree stride is an interesting suggestion, but it's also limited and not without risk.
Wild Shape is pretty solid, though. Most animals can go unnoticed, and as long as it's not an anti-magic area it should work just fine. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Again, this situation is contrived. If you choose to contrive a situation (or participate in discussion on it), then you should consider contrived solutions. Ignoring those is disingenuous, and telling a poster than their solution to a hypothetical problem is disingenuous because it relies on hypothetical solution is laughable not to mention dishonest. I will no longer participate in answering hypotheticals in this thread.
I think that's for the best. In fact, you should probably avoid them, in general.
The point was never that the hypothetical situation I proposed was the ONLY possible way to infiltrate the camp. So there was nothing wrong with his contrived solutions, it's just that they were irrelevant in the first place. It's like if someone asked you "If I put a gun to your head and made you say which of your children is your favorite, which one would you choose?" And you responded "I wouldn't choose, I would snatch the gun out of your hand and karate kick you in the face". Okay... sure there's no rule that you can't counter a hypothetical with another hypothetical, but that's an intellectually dishonest way of avoiding the issue IMO.
Intellectually dishonest is painting a little black box with one solution that doesn't exist and pretending that solving it is actually relevant. If my answer was bad, that's fine. So was the premise. (and my answer was designed to point that out)
A druid will not wear metal armor. "Gun to their head" what happens to a druid who wears metal armor? The rulebooks don't say. They don't have to, because druids will not wear metal armor.
"What happens if it actually happens anyway?" It's up to the DM what changes to the game your table makes. No solution on this forum can be the solution.
Does this really matter?
If you're playing a Druid, why do you want to wear metal armour? If you want to wear metal armour, why do you want to play a Druid?
If you want to wear metal armour, play a Cleric.
Just to reiterate the original question, "metal armor" is not necessarily equivalent to "armor that includes any amount of metal". And while it's been pointed out that there are natural alternatives for rivets and studs, I would allow a druid to pick up generic studded armor from a shop in any case. Similarly, a belt with a metal buckle would also not be an issue. Druids aren't allergic to metal. We use metal scimitars without issue.
If the look and feel are natural, if the majority of the construction is from leather or other natural materials, then there's no issue IMO.
Exactly. It's a preference, not a prohibition. They can wear armor made of metal, they don't lack the ability. Technically, even a straight wizard can don full plate armor. Druids simply elect not to wear metal armor. It's a choice.