Fluff vs. Mechanics

[Addaran]

I don't believe I have stated that for me what is important in the game world is for druids to not wear metal armor. If I gave that impression, I retract that. Obviously, that varies from DM to DM, and from world to world. To me, what is important is that no character get a +3 to the AC intended to their class for no good reason. That's why I would either not give the +3 AC, or create a mechanical drawback in return.

If you don't want druids to get +3 to the AC intended to their class, then why would you be opposed to a druid multiclassing or being the dwarf that gets medium armor as a race, or even as a feat? They are paying for the mechanical advantage. If it's balanced to go fighter then wizard (no armor normaly) and be in a full plate, i don't see why it's not balanced to go fighter then druid in full plate.

What do the rest of you do when you need to replace fluff to make a concept work? A barbarian may be "uncomfortable in crowds," but what if I want to use the barbarian class to represent a back alley street brawler? What about a wizard that broke the divine code and casts healing spells, (actually a knowledge domain cleric.) Ooooooooo, how about a "barbarian" that is also a rogue built as a hunter. Now imagine a monk that lives in the wild and revered nature. Is there any reason he cant call himself a Druid? Class features do not equal a character concept. Fluff does.

The place where this gets particularly frustrating for me is when my <insert class here> can't multi class into something because the DM cant understand that the classes are simply toolboxes of abilities that one can use to build the character they want. Why is a pally/warlock build frowned upon? My relationship with my god changed, or perhaps my understanding of his teachings brought about a stronger relationship... Why can't my druid/cleric build blossom from a general nature worship to following a specific god? Why can't the sorcerer/wizard begin to learn structured magic to help control his natural powers? Why must my rogue/sorcerer or fighter/warlock justify gaining spell casting while the wizard/ranger doesn't need to justify learning about tracking?

Totally aggree with you. Classes are mechanical tools and can often be refluffed. Barbarian that's a back alley brawler. Priest that's not a cleric but can officiate messes and weddings. Having your patron be a powerful dragon or playing a "warlock" that's a dragon sorcerer because you don't like the short rest mechanic.

Every member of a small native tribe can be barbarians, even the ones without class or the pacifist shaman.
You could be a member of the Druids without actually having the class. (range and nature cleric in particular, but even others).
You can be an assassin of any classes if it's your job.

Restriction on multiclass are so often stupidly justified. There's so many reason for pretty much any of them. Even the dreaded paly/warlock. I can understand the DM not letting someone be a oath of devotion/cleric of Lolth or an oath-breaker/cleric of pelor though.