No, I am explaining my reasonIng from my viewpoint. I do get that you disagree with a number of my considerations and that is fine. You play/run games your way and I will mine. Yes to my mind the shield is not a good armor choice for a Druid/rogue. Is it legal by RAW? Yes and so she won’t consider “real life” difficulties and just wipe them off to magic/fantasy. I run and play a more realistic game and those considerations do matter.
But why even bring up your biased opinions and claim them as facts? FACT is that according to the rules, a druid/rogue can have the same AC as ranger (the Defence fighting style being the exception). That you hold the subjective opinions that druid/rogues and rangers should be built and played in a certain way doesn't change that fact.
There is a repulsion towards metal armour but what about metal tools and equipment? Under what circumstances does a Druid dislike metal? What are the exceptions?
Is it something like “metal is bad and corrupt and I don’t like it” or “metal is too holy to be worn like a shirt”, furthermore why is handheld equipment fine? And then why do shields not count as handheld equipment? Is it because of some idea that druids are essentially nature-inclined Amish? Do they just not like forge technology? Why do rangers not have the same aversion? What about jewelry such as metal rings? Why isn’t there any lore for this? What happens if a Druid starts multiclassing as a forge domain cleric?
My favorite explanation is the concept that during druid initiation each young acolyte must witness a true Heat Metal cook and book with the lesson being that you can drop a sword or take off a necklace, but you can't take off plate.
The only real phrase we have is under proficiency "druids will not wear armor or use Shields made of metal"
Weapons are OK. Custom armor is ok but must be dm provided.
At the very least it seems the ac was acounted for in the design because of the amount of extra hp druids get via wildshapes.
And even that is more of a roleplay suggestion than an actual rule. There's literally no penalty for when a Druid happens to be wearing metal armor after all. It doesn't even make sense to make such a broad statement about a player's character either since while it may generally be the case for druids to not be wearing metal armor in a specific setting, there's no reason why the player character or even druids of other settings should be following that custom. It's all in all a very misplaced and ignorable line, really.
While I agreemostly, my original statement was at many tables druids can't have the same ac options.
World building is flexible and sometimes wotc just wants dms to figure it out or fix it.
"It's all in all a very misplaced and ignorable line, really."
Generally the proficiency section would be the appropriate place to put the proficiency restrictions on armor. Now if you think there is a better spot we are all willing to listen. As for whether its ignorable, I generally find most people don't ignore it. I understand that it is annoying that this type of character choice was taken away from player's but the history of druid armor restrictions is long in D&D and not new. I suppose its a bit of a relic, but perhaps they should have treated it like the strange weapon choices (longsword?) for the rogue and kept more flavorful text to themselves.
But its clearly written, in the right spot for armor proficiency, and pretty easy to understand. You don't like it and that is fine.
My favorite explanation is the concept that during druid initiation each young acolyte must witness a true Heat Metal cook and book with the lesson being that you can drop a sword or take off a necklace, but you can't take off plate.
That would explain why it is armor and shields only, but who do they cook? Maybe it’s a magic/cultural induced dream they all share, like how most people have dreams about flying or all your clothes suddenly having gone missing. Maybe it’s a tradition passed on after one of the first Druids got hit with Heat Metal in some kind of Druid duel or something else.
I wish they actually said it though somewhere, maybe it got left out of 5e and the lore is somewhere in a previous addition.
It is, originally ( or close to that) they weren’t allowed to wear metal armor. I suspect that it goes back to Druids being the “clerics” of the celts and the idea that as such they didn’t wear armor just as the traditional Celtic warrior didn’t wear armor fighting nude with a shield supposedly. Folks are right that that their is no penalty for wearing metallic armour and if they do then yes they can have the same AC as rangers etc. However, to my biased and opinionated mind you are no longer playing a Druid but are using the Druid chassis to play a cleric with special abilities using the primal spell list instead of the clerical list. Can you do it? Sure, but you're ( in my opinion) min- maxing not really role playing. Your welcome to do it but please - not at my table.
More importantly if you do you are bypassing a laid out expectation. You have gone from 5e raw to homebrew. Wich is fine but I think tables that enforce the raw have a lot less of a problem with druids outshineing other players.
In other words it seems to be part of the design balance imo.
It is, originally ( or close to that) they weren’t allowed to wear metal armor. I suspect that it goes back to Druids being the “clerics” of the celts and the idea that as such they didn’t wear armor just as the traditional Celtic warrior didn’t wear armor fighting nude with a shield supposedly. Folks are right that that their is no penalty for wearing metallic armour and if they do then yes they can have the same AC as rangers etc. However, to my biased and opinionated mind you are no longer playing a Druid but are using the Druid chassis to play a cleric with special abilities using the primal spell list instead of the clerical list. Can you do it? Sure, but you're ( in my opinion) min- maxing not really role playing. Your welcome to do it but please - not at my table.
I see it more as a "I dislike how nature is treated by the forging of metals/mining" thing to be quite honest, and the metal they use from weapons, like say a scimitar is taken from a foe or made from found metals, also that sounds perfectly reasonable with how strong druids actually are, as another has said on here it seems they took the no metal thing into account when doing the drtuid giving them more hp via wildshape
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But why even bring up your biased opinions and claim them as facts? FACT is that according to the rules, a druid/rogue can have the same AC as ranger (the Defence fighting style being the exception). That you hold the subjective opinions that druid/rogues and rangers should be built and played in a certain way doesn't change that fact.
The restrictions on metal armor mean at many tables they cannot have the same ac as choices become limited.
Thank you Rosco.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There is a repulsion towards metal armour but what about metal tools and equipment? Under what circumstances does a Druid dislike metal? What are the exceptions?
The only real phrase we have is under proficiency "druids will not wear armor or use Shields made of metal"
Weapons are OK. Custom armor is ok but must be dm provided.
At the very least it seems the ac was acounted for in the design because of the amount of extra hp druids get via wildshapes.
Is it something like “metal is bad and corrupt and I don’t like it” or “metal is too holy to be worn like a shirt”, furthermore why is handheld equipment fine? And then why do shields not count as handheld equipment? Is it because of some idea that druids are essentially nature-inclined Amish? Do they just not like forge technology? Why do rangers not have the same aversion? What about jewelry such as metal rings? Why isn’t there any lore for this? What happens if a Druid starts multiclassing as a forge domain cleric?
My favorite explanation is the concept that during druid initiation each young acolyte must witness a true Heat Metal cook and book with the lesson being that you can drop a sword or take off a necklace, but you can't take off plate.
While I agreemostly, my original statement was at many tables druids can't have the same ac options.
World building is flexible and sometimes wotc just wants dms to figure it out or fix it.
"It's all in all a very misplaced and ignorable line, really."
Generally the proficiency section would be the appropriate place to put the proficiency restrictions on armor. Now if you think there is a better spot we are all willing to listen. As for whether its ignorable, I generally find most people don't ignore it. I understand that it is annoying that this type of character choice was taken away from player's but the history of druid armor restrictions is long in D&D and not new. I suppose its a bit of a relic, but perhaps they should have treated it like the strange weapon choices (longsword?) for the rogue and kept more flavorful text to themselves.
But its clearly written, in the right spot for armor proficiency, and pretty easy to understand. You don't like it and that is fine.
That would explain why it is armor and shields only, but who do they cook? Maybe it’s a magic/cultural induced dream they all share, like how most people have dreams about flying or all your clothes suddenly having gone missing. Maybe it’s a tradition passed on after one of the first Druids got hit with Heat Metal in some kind of Druid duel or something else.
I wish they actually said it though somewhere, maybe it got left out of 5e and the lore is somewhere in a previous addition.
It is, originally ( or close to that) they weren’t allowed to wear metal armor. I suspect that it goes back to Druids being the “clerics” of the celts and the idea that as such they didn’t wear armor just as the traditional Celtic warrior didn’t wear armor fighting nude with a shield supposedly. Folks are right that that their is no penalty for wearing metallic armour and if they do then yes they can have the same AC as rangers etc. However, to my biased and opinionated mind you are no longer playing a Druid but are using the Druid chassis to play a cleric with special abilities using the primal spell list instead of the clerical list. Can you do it? Sure, but you're ( in my opinion) min- maxing not really role playing. Your welcome to do it but please - not at my table.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
More importantly if you do you are bypassing a laid out expectation. You have gone from 5e raw to homebrew. Wich is fine but I think tables that enforce the raw have a lot less of a problem with druids outshineing other players.
In other words it seems to be part of the design balance imo.
I see it more as a "I dislike how nature is treated by the forging of metals/mining" thing to be quite honest, and the metal they use from weapons, like say a scimitar is taken from a foe or made from found metals, also that sounds perfectly reasonable with how strong druids actually are, as another has said on here it seems they took the no metal thing into account when doing the drtuid giving them more hp via wildshape