Fluff vs. Mechanics

[Keravath]

I divide fluff and mechanics based on game impact. Fluff changes descriptions and role playing without changing balance or affecting mechanics. Players can usually make fluff changes on their own but need to check with the DM as to whether they fit with the game world. The DM chooses to make mechanical changes, even minor ones.

Fluff is the stuff that you can change without having any mechanical impact.

Reskinning descriptions of anything? Go for it. Mechanically they operate the same. If a wood elf rogue wants to describe their rapier as a long sword, so what, it is still d8 and can still use either strength or dex to attack with and it isn't versatile.

The same goes for any other mechanic. If it functions the same then the balance is not affected, all that changes is how the player describes the character. It is role playing.

Anything else falls into the category of mechanics. The DM has full discretion over what they want to allow for mechanics. If a description or rule has any mechanical impact then it isn't fluff, it is a mechanical rule. The DM has full discretion to change it but the player on their own does not.

Druids not wearing metal armor is mechanics. It affects the AC reachable by a druid unless they can find equivalent non-metal armor. If a player decides to run a druid character this is part of the mechanics, like spellcasting, spell recovery, or wildshape. The player doesn't get to ignore the hit dice or movement limitations of the wildshapes they can choose, they don't get to ignore the metal armor restriction ... unless the DM decides otherwise ... it is always up to the DM in the end.

Similarly, some DMs would decide that the hand gestures described in the burning hands spell are mechanics ... others might decide to ignore it (turning it into fluff).

Some DMs decide that specific material components aren't important mechanically, turning them into fluff, while other DMs might ask a wizard to track every newt eye and bat dropping in their pouch. Mechanics or Fluff? Would a DM allow a player to decide that they will just ignore material requirements for spells? Not usually, it is a DM decision as to what is important, how materials are treated is mechanics and not fluff until the DM decides otherwise.

Anyway, whether mechanics gets in the way of a character concept is a DM call. If someone has a druid character concept that really wants to wear metal armor then the DM can decide whether to allow it in their game world or not. What if the metal armor was plate rather than half-plate? Druids aren't usually proficient with heavy armor. However, the DM can decide that this druid could wear heavy metal armor if they want to - DMs can change mechanics as they want to. However, the player can't decide that their druid will be proficient in heavy armor and wear plate - that is a DM call. Similarly, the player can't decide the character would wear metal half-plate for the same reason - it's a rule and the DM decides on any and all mechanical exceptions.

[Hail Tempus]

blah, blah, "I want my druid to wear metal armor.." blah blah

Same old argument, "It is just fluff, and fluff doesn't matter"

Moving on.

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

[Willie the Duck]

I agree with those who have stated that this whole fluff vs. crunch dichotomy is an artificial distinction and not specifically part of 5e and not really that helpful. Also as others have said, all rules, fluff or crunch are equally modifiable at a given game table.

I'll be the one to decide what my character does or doesn't do, thank you very much.

I agree that the way it was handled leads to this sense of having one's autonomy of character action violated. It was probably not the best choice.

The whole druid and metal armor problem could be solved if they listed alternative armor materials in a core book instead of one campaign print.

Or simply chosen a different explanation, possibly with a canonical answer for the question, 'okay, but what if they do?' Personally, I like reverting it to 'druids cannot cast in armor in which they are not proficient' (a truth for all spell casting) and just make their base armor proficiencies be the non-metallic ones. They want to wear other armor? Great, pay the feats or multiclass or be a mountain dwarf.

The only argument that I really don't buy is (and not saying anyone here has said it) "well, that's just fluff, so a druid should be able to wear metal armor." No, if you don't like the fluff, negate the fluff, but then that leaves what the situation should be as an open question, so now you have to make a case for any specific outcome (metal or otherwise).

[sithlordnergal]

Both mechanics and fluff are not Holy Writ, and can be changed by the DM, or by the players, with DM approval.
But if it has mechanical implications (like Druids and armor, or, yes, even burning hands gestures), it should not be called fluff, and specially not be called fluff in order to dismiss them. You want to dismiss them, just do it.

Well, its more then just the Druid thing. Its fluff in general. How important is it to you that a Dwarf acts like a regular Dwarf. By PHB terms, Dwarves are determined, loyal, and tend to hold onto grudges. How about height? Do people have an issue with, say, a 7 foot tall Dwarf? Even though there are no mechanical benefits to being that tall.

[Misterwhisper]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

I actually have had the problem in reverse.

I was building a noble fencer type of character, the snooty, and arrogant kind of guy that was not that great with people but he did bring up good points and you ended up agreeing with him even though he was a d-bag. (Not a great charisma but did have training and expertise in persuasion.)

I was playing a fighter 1 / swashbuckler X, took fighter just so I could get the dueling fighting style.

I played it as a noble gentleman duelist and even though I had proficiency, I did not use a shield, I kept my off hand empty.

This greatly angered some of the other players as they were all like, "use a shield, it will be +2 or more ac" I asked the DM if I could use my scabbard for my rapier as a shield kind of like deflecting and things, to which he said "no, because you can just pick up and drop a scabbard, not wear it like a shield." made sense to me so I didn't use one.

[Hail Tempus]

Well, its more then just the Druid thing. Its fluff in general. How important is it to you that a Dwarf acts like a regular Dwarf. By PHB terms, Dwarves are determined, loyal, and tend to hold onto grudges. How about height? Do people have an issue with, say, a 7 foot tall Dwarf? Even though there are no mechanical benefits to being that tall.

Regarding personality, PCs are weirdos, by most standards. I don't see anything problematic about a dwarf who has an uncharacteristically sunny disposition and doesn't drink alcohol. His un-dwarven personality might be why he's out in the world adventuring.

The 7' tall dwarf would be an odd ask from a player. I think that sort of breaks verisimilitude. If a player wants a grim, mountain-dwelling race that's also very tall, goliath is a better option.

D&D embodies certain tropes, especially in a setting like FR. Players should buy into that setting when they sign up for a campaign.

I actually have had the problem in reverse.

I was building a noble fencer type of character, the snooty, and arrogant kind of guy that was not that great with people but he did bring up good points and you ended up agreeing with him even though he was a d-bag. (Not a great charisma but did have training and expertise in persuasion.)

I was playing a fighter 1 / swashbuckler X, took fighter just so I could get the dueling fighting style.

I played it as a noble gentleman duelist and even though I had proficiency, I did not use a shield, I kept my off hand empty.

This greatly angered some of the other players as they were all like, "use a shield, it will be +2 or more ac" I asked the DM if I could use my scabbard for my rapier as a shield kind of like deflecting and things, to which he said "no, because you can just pick up and drop a scabbard, not wear it like a shield." made sense to me so I didn't use one.

I see that scenario as being different. Deciding to play your character less than ideally is a choice any player can make, and it doesn't require any bending of the rules.

[diplomancer]

The "fluff" solution for the Druid who wants to wear metal armor (if the DM wants to accomodate the fluff but does not want to mess with mechanics) is to allow him to do so... with the exact same stats and mechanics as studded leather armor.

Like the rapier that looks like a long sword, this is studded leather armor that looks like a breastplate.

Alas, I've never seen proponents of the "druids will not wear metal armor is just fluff" theory to be happy with that fluff solution.

[Kane0]

Just make the exact same armor out of something else, like bone or ironwood. They're still proficient. But that's for druids & metal armor specifically, the fluff is still important for other purposes.

[GlenSmash!]

I think "descriptive text is rules" has some idiosyncrasies that keep me from fully embracing it as a paradigm.

For example the Barbarian class description says "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds" should I tell my Barbarian play "You are uncomfortable" when the party walks into Waterdeep or do I let the player decide whether or not their Barbarian is uncomfortable.

That broaches a line with how I DM that I prefer not to cross namely letting the Player decide how their character thinks and acts.

But here is the real kicker, what if the Barbarian in question has a background that specifically would make them comfortable in walls and crowds like the Urchin, or City Watch? is Background more specific that class text? Or does it not matter because of my DM style. Am I houseruling or rule of cooling by deciding this does not matter?

On the whole I think fluff is for the most part meant to be descriptive not restrictive and I try to lean that way.

[Tanarii]

That broaches a line with how I DM that I prefer not to cross namely letting the Player decide how their character thinks and acts.

I think you've got an overly narrow definition of rules, of how binding they are, and who gets to modify them..

But that aside, if we actually assumed it was a binding statement, its actually the rulebook telling the player how yheir character thinks and acts. Most RPG games do this, and D&D is no exception.

[stoutstien]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....

[GlenSmash!]

I think you've got an overly narrow definition of rules, of how binding they are, and who gets to modify them..

Quite possible true. This is the very purpose of my frequenting forums. To improve my games based on how other people play the game. Or in other words to open my mind.

[diplomancer]

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....

Get a feat and you have AC 20 without stealth penalty.

And this "single level dip" for the wizard is a significant trade-off. What's the Druid's trade-off?

[stoutstien]

Get a feat and you have AC 20 without stealth penalty.

And this "single level dip" for the wizard is a significant trade-off. What's the Druid's trade-off?

A feat apparently and a 16 in Dex, the same as clerics or anyone else wanting to max out medium armor.

[diplomancer]

A feat apparently and a 16 in Dex, the same as clerics or anyone else wanting to max out medium armor.

A feat is far less of a cost than delaying your class features (including spell level) and having 13 Wis (and 15 str, if you don't want to have a movement penalty or be a dwarf).

16 dex is not a drawback. Most druids try to have it. You know, since they will not wear metal armor. (If their dex is 14, allowing them to wear metal armor is an even greater buff, either plus 2 or plus 3 AC depending on whether you care about the stealth penalty or not).

But, as I said, I'm flexible with fluff. Any Druid who wants to wear metal armor in my game may do so, unless there is something that wouldn't make it work in the setting. As long as it is mechanically exactly like studded leather.

[stoutstien]

A feat is far less of a cost than delaying your class features (including spell level) and having 13 Wis (and 15 str, if you don't want to have a movement penalty or be a dwarf).

16 dex is not a drawback. Most druids try to have it. You know, since they will not wear metal armor. (If their dex is 14, allowing them to wear metal armor is an even greater buff, either plus 2 or plus 3 AC depending on whether you care about the stealth penalty or not).

But, as I said, I'm flexible with fluff. Any Druid who wants to wear metal armor in my game may do so, unless there is something that wouldn't make it work in the setting. As long as it is mechanically exactly like studded leather.

What happens when druid multiclass into another class say a druid 2 / barbarian X? Seems like bunch of pencil work for one particular class over a few AC that won't even be an issue.
Which brings up a new question: can warforged be druids?

[Hail Tempus]

Half plate is max 17(15+max Dex of 2) +2 for a potential shield and that has a trade off of disadvantage on stealth checks.
It's a good thing wizards can't get full plate and shield proficiency with a single level dip into a class with full casting, good skills, useful spell.....

Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

[stoutstien]

Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

Disadvantage on stealth the same for everyone. I can't see any mechanical reason for the barring of metal for druids. Fluff wise sure but all and all they get similar AC to clerics.

[JNAProductions]

Multi-classing comes with a cost, as well as benefits.

What the cost when a Druid gets to ignore the rule preventing them from wearing metal armor?

What's the mechanical reason for Druids not getting metal armor? If there's not a mechanical reason (as-in, it's purely a fluff or traditional limitation) then I see no reason to impose a mechanical cost to it.

Not to mention a feat and 16 Dex to get AC 20... Yeah, that's a not-so insignificant cost. If we assume the Druid is a Wood Elf (typical Druid race) who starts with a 16 in Dex and Wis, they either have to give up maxing Wisdom early on or they don't get AC 20 till level 12. It's certainly better than a lower AC, but it's not breaking a damn thing at that level.

[Misterwhisper]

What's the mechanical reason for Druids not getting metal armor? If there's not a mechanical reason (as-in, it's purely a fluff or traditional limitation) then I see no reason to impose a mechanical cost to it.

Not to mention a feat and 16 Dex to get AC 20... Yeah, that's a not-so insignificant cost. If we assume the Druid is a Wood Elf (typical Druid race) who starts with a 16 in Dex and Wis, they either have to give up maxing Wisdom early on or they don't get AC 20 till level 12. It's certainly better than a lower AC, but it's not breaking a damn thing at that level.

The same reason a barbarian can’t rage in heavy armor.
Because the designers said so.

No special materials or other rp around it either.
A druid can wear medium armor if it is made of chitin or scales or something, or even heavy if they want.
Barbarians simply can’t rage in heavy armor.
Same as monks and shields.

[Tanarii]

Quite possible true. This is the very purpose of my frequenting forums. To improve my games based on how other people play the game. Or in other words to open my mind.

Rereading my statement, it reads harsher than what I intended. Thanks for being cool, and sorry about that.

Not directly for a response to you, but rambling off into more thoughts on the subject ...

Usually when people try to divide things into fluff and mechanics, the reason is a player trying to divide it into "things I can change at will without my DMs permission" and "things I need a DM house rule to change". Sometimes it's a DM trying to predefine those for their players.

My position is rules are rules, and they have a sliding scale of flexibility to be changed by either DM or player. I'm just as prone to arguing RAW (as in literal words on the page) vs developer intent vs plain English reading vs what makes sense to me as the next guy on the forums. More sometimes. But for game time, I've become cool with "work out what works best for you and your players".

As I said upthread, there are some developers that have embraced clearly defining which are which, of which Heinsoo is the one I know best, as do many of us because of 4e. It has its advantages.

But the 5e developers have been fairly clear they're not interested in that. They're interested in mixing up resolution and character motivational and (personal /gag) story elements.

[sithlordnergal]

The same reason a barbarian can’t rage in heavy armor.
Because the designers said so.

No special materials or other rp around it either.
A druid can wear medium armor if it is made of chitin or scales or something, or even heavy if they want.
Barbarians simply can’t rage in heavy armor.
Same as monks and shields.

Actually, I'd like to correct you on two things:

First, no Raging in heavy armor is a mechanical effect, outlined within Rage itself. It isn't fluff, like the Druid's "They refuse to wear metal armor" bit.

Second, a Monk can absolutely wear armor. All they lose is Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and half of Unarmored Movement. Take a close look at their class abilities, they can still use all of their Ki abilities, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, use Evasion, gain the benefits of their Subclasses, and they even retain the ability to walk on water and move across vertical surfaces, cause those two abilites aren't dependent on having higher move speed. Meaning, technically, you can make a Lizardfolk Fighter/Monk that wears Heavy Armor and uses their d6 Bite Attack for their Flurry of Blows, and gain pretty much all the benefits of being a Monk.

Either way, both of those examples have mechanical detriments to wearing Armor that they are banned from. The Druid doesn't, they don't lose anything. All they are told is that "Druids refuse to wear metal armor because it is seen as taboo".

[Valmark]

I feel like fluff is "irrelevant", meaning that you can freely change it as long as that change is consistent (I mean, you want your dwarf to be 8' tall? Then all dwarves all 8' tall unless there's some strange reason like a curse, an ilness etc.) and is accepted by the DM. Plus, assuming I'm not the DM, whatever the others want to change I'm cool with it if it doesn't contradict my character somehow (taking the tall dwarf example, if I want my dwarf to be of "normal" height then his cannot be a general thing, but it must be specific to his subrace or character)

Of course, if said fluff would then influens mechanics it's no longer fluff and I as a DM would probably NOT allow it, because I'm kind of scared to alter the rules and risk introducting some unbalancing, unless the party actually wants said change. No sense in keeping a rule no one likes then.
For example, if one person asks me to have druids in metal armor (since that example has been used in the thread) I'm going to say no since the mechanical rules say that they won't use them. Homewever if everyone in the party's fine with it then sure, by all means take it, we can always revert later if it's too much of a problem.



What I'm absolutely NOT ok with is damaging a character in a significant way for the sake of the story.
I'll clear it up. There was this story on youtube about a DM who setted up a "False Hydra" as an enemy, a monster that erases all the memories about its prey when it eats them from the other's minds.
Among other things he did he killed the ranger's animal companion without a save or anything and made it disappear.
I'm not sure that this is relevant to the topic, but just in case, I find something like this to be terribly wrong, even more so from a roleplaying point of view.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I always thought the Druid aversion to metal was their connection to Fey. Druids tap into the same wild magic Fey do, and neither can stand contact with metal because Fey magic itself detests it.

Personally I think you are free to change whatever about fluff or mechanics you don't like. There is no moral imperative to keep the game as is.

[Greywander]

Hmmm... You never seem to see players using fluff as a reason to decrease their character's effectiveness. It's always "my druid has different beliefs from other druids, that's why he should be allowed to wear half plate. No, of course it's not because I want to potentially have a 20 AC".

No, it's not about powergaming or minmaxing. It has nothing to do with exploiting mechanics. I already posted several mechanical solutions that would fix the issue and actually make druids weaker.

One of the major problems, as Willie the Duck pointed out, is one of autonomy. The rules are telling me what my character will do. I mean, if other people are going to dictate the actions of my character, why am I even there? Just turn my character into an NPC and I'll go play a game where I can actually have fun. Fluff should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It would have been infinitely better if it had said that druids can't wear metal armor. That would solve the autonomy issue, but leads us into the second issue.

The second problem is that fluff needs to make sense. It needs enough justification so as not to break the suspension of disbelief. Here, there is no justification. It begs the question of, "What if I put on metal armor anyway?" or, "What if I'm forced into metal armor?" So... what actually does happen? Because it doesn't say. There isn't actually a reason for me not to wear metal armor. What if we capture a druid and put them in metal armor? What happens then? The lack of explanation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I want to understand why things are the way they are.

Another thing, not being able to wear metal armor is not fluff. It's mechanics. Not liking vegetables is fluff. There's no mechanical impact should my character refuse to eat vegetables, nor is there one if he is forced to eat them. That's fluff. What armor I can or can't wear is not fluff. It's mechanics. So it needs a mechanical justification. The simplest one is to simply say that druids aren't proficient with metal armor. Bam, done. That explains and justifies everything.

Now, let's consider an example that's a bit inverted from druids and metal armor: winged PC races.

If one were to think about the fluff of being a winged humanoid, then it would certainly have some restrictions and downsides:

• Normal clothing and armor won't fit you, it needs to be specially tailored.
• You can't use backpacks. Look into using waistpacks instead.
• Likewise, squeezing through tight spaces will be much more difficult.
• Flying takes a lot of energy. You'll need to eat a lot more, especially food high in sugar and fat.
• You'll be able to carry a lot less weight while flying.
• And then there's wingspan. A "realistic" winged humanoid would need something like a 30 foot wingspan (similar to a hang glider) in order to plausibly fly.

And yet, almost nothing is mentioned when it comes to restrictions or downsides. Aarakocra can't fly while wearing medium or heavy armor, but that's about it. Winged tieflings don't even have that restriction. A winged tiefling, mechanically speaking, has always on flight with no downsides. They can fly in a 5 foot cube, while wearing heavy armor and maxing out their carrying capacity, with a backpack, and still squeeze through tight spaces. Mechanically speaking.

I'm actually going to be rolling a winged tiefling in an upcoming game, and because I do care about verisimilitude, even though I know there aren't any mechanical downsides, I wanted to try and figure out how to make my wings work. I'm refluffing a backpack to be one or more waistpacks that collectively have similar capacity to a backpack. I thought a lot about my character's clothing. Even though mechanically she can still squeeze through tight spaces, I will RP her as being more uncomfortable while doing so. I will also consider wingspan and available space when flying, though probably not a 30 foot wingspan.

The difference between wings and druids with metal armor is that there's nothing in the rules that say I can't fly in a 5 foot wide hallway, but I would totally understand if the DM told me it was too narrow.

[Tanarii]

Nothing wrong with roleplaying rules. Sometimes they're just telling you what your character might do. Sometimes they tell you what your character will or not do. Sometimes they have an attached mechanic for resolving them. Other times they don't.

Exalted, PbtA, and torchbearer all have extensive roleplaying rules, many with an attached mechanic for resolution, some purely depending on the player cooperating. D&D 5e has a mix, some like Tenets or Pacts or Necromancy or Deities or Alignment/Personalities depending on DM and player cooperation. Others like Charmed or Frightened having an attached mechanic.

[Misterwhisper]

Actually, I'd like to correct you on two things:

First, no Raging in heavy armor is a mechanical effect, outlined within Rage itself. It isn't fluff, like the Druid's "They refuse to wear metal armor" bit.

Second, a Monk can absolutely wear armor. All they lose is Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and half of Unarmored Movement. Take a close look at their class abilities, they can still use all of their Ki abilities, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, use Evasion, gain the benefits of their Subclasses, and they even retain the ability to walk on water and move across vertical surfaces, cause those two abilites aren't dependent on having higher move speed. Meaning, technically, you can make a Lizardfolk Fighter/Monk that wears Heavy Armor and uses their d6 Bite Attack for their Flurry of Blows, and gain pretty much all the benefits of being a Monk.

Either way, both of those examples have mechanical detriments to wearing Armor that they are banned from. The Druid doesn't, they don't lose anything. All they are told is that "Druids refuse to wear metal armor because it is seen as taboo".

It does not matter what the reason is, the book says they don’t wear it, same as rage no happening in heavy armor.

Does it make sense, not in the least, I can very easily see many dwarves druids seeing metal as of the earth and just as much nature as a tree or animal, same as a barbarian releasing their rage and power in spiked full plate.

However it doesn’t matter, that is what the designers said.

[Addaran]

I think there's a big difference between will not and cannot. DnD isn't shy of making exception or going outside of the categories ( rogue/monk weapons). If they wanted only non-metalic armor, they could have said light + hide. For stuff like dragon scales armor, they are basically magic items, so you can put it there that druids can use them.

As mentionned but others, barbarian and monk gives exactly what happpen when they do wear (heavy) armors. Feels they would do the same for druide. Even paladin, who have a more "fluff" restriction ( philosophical instead of physical restriction) does say they could lose their powers or even become an oath-breaker.

Regarding barbarians, they can't rage in heavy armor because that would make them even more indestructible. Possibly 20 AC at lvl one and resistance to all damage except psychic....

Would druid really be too strong with medium armor? Closest class is cleric and they have medium ( or heavy but that's at the cost of some feature). Or if druid and sorcerer/wizard/warlock are balanced, would a druid dwarf suddently become more OP then a dwarf from one of the other class? If no metal armor is a mechanical balance for druid, then you should be able to get it from your race or feat.


Greywander, nice one about winged tiefling. I'd have to check but maybe the MM's general rule about winged creatures give some restriction?

sithlordnergal Armored lizard folk monk sounds really badass.

[Kane0]

Nothing wrong with roleplaying rules. Sometimes they're just telling you what your character might do. Sometimes they tell you what your character will or not do. Sometimes they have an attached mechanic for resolving them. Other times they don't.

I think D&D's problem is that this could be conveyed (and differentiated) more clearly.

[JNAProductions]

It does not matter what the reason is, the book says they don’t wear it, same as rage no happening in heavy armor.

Does it make sense, not in the least, I can very easily see many dwarves druids seeing metal as of the earth and just as much nature as a tree or animal, same as a barbarian releasing their rage and power in spiked full plate.

However it doesn’t matter, that is what the designers said.

No, that's NOT the same. Not at all.

The in-game mechanics of a Barbarian in Heavy Armor is that they lose benefits of Rage. (Yes, I'm aware that some benefits, usually the archetype ones, are not lost. But in general.)

If a Druid wears metal, what's the in-game mechanical penalty/limitation?