Fluff vs. Mechanics

[mythmonster2]

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.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I've never considered making a barbarian or monk in heavy armor because that's mechanical. If the rules had been like in 3.5 and it just said "being in metal armor prevents you from spellcasting or wild shaping because it disrupts nature blah blah blah", I would never consider making a druid in metal armor, and I'd probably refuse it to any players without some kind of catch (special metal mined from the peak of a mountain under a full moon, that kind of stuff). It's the fact that the game is telling me that my dwarf, who trained for the first half of his life as a soldier, now doesn't want to wear metal armor that's the biggest problem.

[ad_hoc]

This pretty much sums it up for me. I've never considered making a barbarian or monk in heavy armor because that's mechanical. If the rules had been like in 3.5 and it just said "being in metal armor prevents you from spellcasting or wild shaping because it disrupts nature blah blah blah", I would never consider making a druid in metal armor, and I'd probably refuse it to any players without some kind of catch (special metal mined from the peak of a mountain under a full moon, that kind of stuff). It's the fact that the game is telling me that my dwarf, who trained for the first half of his life as a soldier, now doesn't want to wear metal armor that's the biggest problem.

If it is not in your character concept to be a druid, don't be a druid. If you want to gain divine power from nature and wear heavy armour, be a nature cleric.

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.

The rules aren't written to punish choices into oblivion. There isn't a rule that says a Druid who wears metal armour loses their spellcasting. Instead it says that they won't wear metal armour. This is because the rules are written narrative first. They are about who characters are. This is much more satisfying than coming up with some sort of mystical reason that Druidic magic fails when wearing metal armour. Instead, it is a chosen part of their identity as a religious order that they don't.

Why would you houserule this rule and not 'prevents you from spellcasting'? If you want to houserule then I empower you to do so. I just think you're missing out.

[Kane0]

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.

Erm, is a ranger in plate still a ranger?

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm curious, how important is fluff to all you players and DMs out there? And by fluff, I mean things that are stated but have no mechanical detriment or benefit, they're just things assumed by a given book.

A good example would be the "Druids won't wear metal armor due to it being taboo." There are no mechanical detriments for a Druid that chooses to wear metal armor like in 3.e. By RAW, the Druid loses nothing, and as such it is on the DM's head to make a penalty.

Personally, I see fluff as a guideline that can be tossed out without any real concerns. That Demon over there? Could be a lawful good Paladin. The Druid in metal armor? A few druids might give them the stink eye, but they're fine. Some broad assumption about a race? Feel free to break it.

My only rule as a DM is find a way to justify it. You're a Dwarven Druid that served in the Dwarven Army? Go ahead and wear metal armor. Dwarf Druids will have no issue with it, but other Druids might.

EDIT: So, in order to clarify things more, the Druid thing is just an example. Other examples could be height and weight. Does it matter to you, as a player or DM, if a person brings an 8 foot tall Dwarf. There's no mechanical benefit, you're still a Medium creature, you're just a Dwarf that's as tall as a Goliath. Or how about a peaceful Barbarian, one that prefers peaceful solutions and never does lethal damage? It goes against the fluff of being a Barbarian, but there's nothing stopping a player from doing so.

As a person who frequents the forums, I have seen a few DMs who would balk at the idea of an 8 foot tall Dwarf, because it goes against the established norm. So, how important is that sort of thing to you?

I have no problem with a druid wearing metal armor or wielding metal weapons. I'm not even certain why there's a taboo listed in the first place.

As for being a peaceful barbarian, that's definitely okay because that's your character's demeanor, and the class has nothing to do with it.

On the 8' dwarf, that's a little bit beyond the normal height range for a dwarf. That said, there were humans with a genetic disorder that makes them very large, so that could be you as a dwarf, but the NPC's will react to it in the way I imagine people would have reacted to humans with gigantism.

[Greywander]

If it is not in your character concept to be a druid, don't be a druid. If you want to gain divine power from nature and wear heavy armour, be a nature cleric.

Druids have specific identities. Part of that identity is that they don't wear metal armour. If you have a character who wants to wear metal armour, then they aren't a druid.

It's not that I want to play a druid in metal armor. It's that I want a reason why I won't wear armor. Making druids not proficient with metal armor provides a reason for it. Druids just aren't trained with wearing and maintaining metal armor. If I choose to wear metal armor anyway, now I know what will happen: I won't be able to cast spell and I'll have disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. That's a pretty good reason not to wear metal armor. Oh, and if I do want to play a druid who wears metal armor? I just need to get more general armor proficiencies, probably by multiclassing.

So by making druids not proficient with metal armor, we...:

• Provide a clear reason why metal armor isn't worn, as well as consequences for doing so anyway.
• Provide a method of subverting this general rule if we decide to buck the trend.

I'm really not understanding why it's such a problem to attach a mechanical reason to not wear metal armor. "It's part of their identity." It was part of the paladin's identity to always be Lawful Good, but the game developers recognized that there wasn't really a reason to artificially restrict players' alignment. Now you can have Lawful Evil Vengeance or Conquest paladins, or Chaotic Neutral Ancients paladins. And it's not like the LG paladins went anywhere, you can still play one of them, it's just that we have more options now. So why restrict the druid? And why in such a limply worded way? If the druid must be restricted, why not do so in a similar way to how barbarians and monks are restricted when it comes to armor?

The objections to this are just so bizarre to me, and I suspect these objections are coming from people who have a long history with D&D. They've so internalized that druids don't wear metal armor that it seems unfathomable to even suggest it. It's not that I object to the idea, I just want to understand why. I'm not willing to simply accept "because the book says so."

Fluff isn't about what my character will or will not do. That's up to me to decide. Fluff tells me how things work, or what things look like, or other descriptions. I can then use those descriptions to help me decide what I will do. Again, refer back to my comments on winged tieflings. By analyzing the fluff behind having wings, I've been able to determine that my character should have certain disadvantages in certain situations, even though the rules don't state this, and I intend to roleplay the limitations of having a huge honking pair of wings on my back, even if the rules don't say I have to.

[diplomancer]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

[Greywander]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

No. This isn't even remotely similar. Stop drawing false equivalencies.

Imagine that wizards have Cure Wounds on their spell list. Now imagine a single line in the book stating that wizards won't (not can't, they can, just just won't) cast healing spells. Yes, even if you multiclass into cleric, because you are a wizard your character won't cast any healing spells. Even though Cure Wounds is on your spell list.

Druids have proficiency with medium armor. This means that they trained with using breastplates and half plate and the like at some point. And then they just decided they're not going to wear those kinds of armor. The ones they've learned how to use as part of their druidic training. Even if you multiclass into another class that gets medium or heavy armor proficiency, because you are a druid you still won't wear metal armor. But you can. You just won't. And if you do so anyway? Nothing happens.

You might as well make up a rule that fighters won't use weapons on Tuesdays. Oh, they can, nothing is actually stopping them. But they'll just choose not. What's that? You want to play a fighter who does use weapons on Tuesdays? Clearly you're just a powergamer trying to exploit the rules, you don't care at all about the deep lore behind why fighters won't use weapons on Tuesdays. How dare you.

[LentilNinja]

To divert from Druid vs Metal Armour, I see fluff and mechanics as two workers for the same company in different roles: They both contribute to create a full product, but they should never try to do each other's work.

Too many times have I heard the likes of "If you're gonna play Paladin/Warlock/some multiclass, I'm not going to let you without good plot reasons." OK, but.. why? If I wanted to play a class that can have a simpler background such as Barbarian, Fighter, or even Barbarian/Fighter most DMs wouldn't be questioning. If you're not going to demand a story reason for every class, you shouldn't be demanding it for ANY class.

I get DMs like characters to have some backstory & not just be a race & class combo, and I'm happy to work with a DM to ensure my character fits in and makes sense, but fluff shouldn't be a gatekeeping tool to prevent people from having fun. The times I've witnessed this, it's mostly used to prevent players using classes or combos that DMs deem OP (Hexblade, Paladin 2/Caster X, Warlock 2/Anything X).

I'm also of the belief that, with little exception, the game and it's rules should take precedence over the DM. Some changes can be made here & there to make it more fitting for a campaign setting or more balanced (such as no CoffeeLock) but if we're just going to apply arbitrary rules like you can't follow a Deity & have a Patron or you can't wear Metal Armour as a Druid which detracts from a player's fun, why are we even playing this game? Why don't we just play something else?

[stoutstien]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

Wait a few weeks and grab the dragonmark that adds healing spells to any spell list.

All and all druid should have been a cleric domain to began with.

[Valmark]

"My wizard is a very good man who would like to heal others. Why can't he cast cure wounds and other healing spells with intelligence as his casting stat? Those designers are really mean to inflict that limitation on my character concept. The arcane-divine divide is only fluff with no real mechanical consequence!"

The phrase "druids can't wear metal armor", specially without stating a mechanical consequence, is obviously false.

I don't get the point of this. The argument is that druid won't wear it, not that they can't.

It's not that I want to play a druid in metal armor. It's that I want a reason why I won't wear armor. Making druids not proficient with metal armor provides a reason for it. Druids just aren't trained with wearing and maintaining metal armor. If I choose to wear metal armor anyway, now I know what will happen: I won't be able to cast spell and I'll have disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. That's a pretty good reason not to wear metal armor. Oh, and if I do want to play a druid who wears metal armor? I just need to get more general armor proficiencies, probably by multiclassing.

So by making druids not proficient with metal armor, we...:

• Provide a clear reason why metal armor isn't worn, as well as consequences for doing so anyway.
• Provide a method of subverting this general rule if we decide to buck the trend.

I'm really not understanding why it's such a problem to attach a mechanical reason to not wear metal armor. "It's part of their identity." It was part of the paladin's identity to always be Lawful Good, but the game developers recognized that there wasn't really a reason to artificially restrict players' alignment. Now you can have Lawful Evil Vengeance or Conquest paladins, or Chaotic Neutral Ancients paladins. And it's not like the LG paladins went anywhere, you can still play one of them, it's just that we have more options now. So why restrict the druid? And why in such a limply worded way? If the druid must be restricted, why not do so in a similar way to how barbarians and monks are restricted when it comes to armor?

The objections to this are just so bizarre to me, and I suspect these objections are coming from people who have a long history with D&D. They've so internalized that druids don't wear metal armor that it seems unfathomable to even suggest it. It's not that I object to the idea, I just want to understand why. I'm not willing to simply accept "because the book says so."

Fluff isn't about what my character will or will not do. That's up to me to decide. Fluff tells me how things work, or what things look like, or other descriptions. I can then use those descriptions to help me decide what I will do. Again, refer back to my comments on winged tieflings. By analyzing the fluff behind having wings, I've been able to determine that my character should have certain disadvantages in certain situations, even though the rules don't state this, and I intend to roleplay the limitations of having a huge honking pair of wings on my back, even if the rules don't say I have to.

Tbh the paladin one makes much less sense then druids and metal. It makes no sense that a church of some chaotic, evil, neutral god can't have paladins. Or even a Neutral Good God (although back in 3.5 you coulf be one step from your divinity, so it still worked)/a Chaotic Good God. Druids you can argue that they are tied to the elemental forces of nature and the organic nature, instead of dead rocks and metals (weak argument since they do use metal weapons but whatever)

Anyway, isn't the mechanical consequence the loss of powers? If a druid won't wear metal armor and he decides to do so he stops being a Druid, no? At least, that's the rule I'd enforce unless there's a really good reason the PC is doing it (or if we decided to ignore that ban)

Erm, is a ranger in plate still a ranger?

I'm not sure this makes sense as an objection. Druids are banned from metal armor, rangers don't have proficiency in heavy armor. It's completely different. The latter can just take the proficiency, the former... can't.

[Willie the Duck]

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.

True, and oftentimes it comes down to a shared consensus about what kind of rules are 'acceptable' (there's certainly no codified 'rules about acceptable rules' or the like, that's no more a universally known thing than the fluff/crunch divide). That said, the Druid armor thing in 5e is notable in that it does deviate from a perceived norm within the edition. In most other cases, even places where there used to be RP restrictions in previous editions, they were removed. Druid armor actually took what was a restriction with mechanical consequences and moved it into the RP restriction zone without clear explanation as to why. I think that might be why it sticks in more than a few craws.

[diplomancer]

The best solution to the druid armor problem is to let them get alternative material medium armor around levels 6-8, which is when a dex-based warrior, and maybe even a str-based warrior would get
their best non-magical AC. Having your AC progression cut short so soon (around level 2, really, or even 1 for some builds) feels wrong to most people. The worst solution is to say "it's fluff, not mechanics, so I can just ignore it and see what the DM does about it".

As to the "no-consequence" argument: Consequence is whatever the DM wants it to be, from nothing to being shunned or hunted down by other druids, to having nature itself try to kill you (I believe there is a CR 25 Avatar of Nature somewhere), to losing your powers immediately, to losing them at the worst possible moment. Once you put on metal armor, you are entirely at the DM's mercy, in an even worse situation than the Paladin who regularly breaks his oath for no good reason.

What I would probably do as a DM is that for each day you wear the armor you become a Nature Cleric X/Druid Y-X, where X is the number of days and Y is your initial Druid level. Somewhat lenient interpretation, I know, so it would be irreversible without some sort of quest.

[JNAProductions]

The best solution to the druid armor problem is to let them get alternative material medium armor around levels 6-8, which is when a dex-based warrior, and maybe even a str-based warrior would get
their best non-magical AC. Having your AC progression cut short so soon (around level 2, really, or even 1 for some builds) feels wrong to most people. The worst solution is to say "it's fluff, not mechanics, so I can just ignore it and see what the DM does about it".

As to the "no-consequence" argument: Consequence is whatever the DM wants it to be, from nothing to being shunned or hunted down by other druids, to having nature itself try to kill you (I believe there is a CR 25 Avatar of Nature somewhere), to losing your powers immediately, to losing them at the worst possible moment. Once you put on metal armor, you are entirely at the DM's mercy, not unlike the Paladin who regularly breaks his oath for no good reason

If a DM shut off my powers for wearing metal armor without first making clear that they have a houserule about it, I'd be mad as hell.

Being shunned by other Druids is a fluff consequence for a fluff rule-okay, that's fine.
Being attacked b an avatar of Gaia is technically a fluff consequence-if you're sending a CR 25 monster after, say, a level eight Druid, you're a jerk, but it's still not mechanical.

But shutting off my powers, when mechanically there is no listed penalty? That's a houserule, and that is very much one I'd need to know ahead of time if I'm playing a Druid. If a DM did have a houserule such as "Druids who wear metal armor willingly cannot cast spells or use active Druid abilities until they remove it and complete a rest," that'd be fine. They're adding on a mechanical penalty, but that's a clear houserule that I know about and can plan around.

[diplomancer]

If a DM shut off my powers for wearing metal armor without first making clear that they have a houserule about it, I'd be mad as hell.

Being shunned by other Druids is a fluff consequence for a fluff rule-okay, that's fine.
Being attacked b an avatar of Gaia is technically a fluff consequence-if you're sending a CR 25 monster after, say, a level eight Druid, you're a jerk, but it's still not mechanical.

But shutting off my powers, when mechanically there is no listed penalty? That's a houserule, and that is very much one I'd need to know ahead of time if I'm playing a Druid. If a DM did have a houserule such as "Druids who wear metal armor willingly cannot cast spells or use active Druid abilities until they remove it and complete a rest," that'd be fine. They're adding on a mechanical penalty, but that's a clear houserule that I know about and can plan around.

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. The rulebook very clearly states that Druids will not wear metal armor. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

[JNAProductions]

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

Diplomancer, do you understand my and other's main complaint about this?

It's imposing a mechanical limitation with no penalties for breaking it. If there was a rule that stated something akin to the houserule I posted above, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a rule I'd certainly be willing to lift for a player, or just in general, but it'd be a solid rule.

What it is now is controlling PC actions without applying any mechanical effects. Not "Druids cannot wear metal armor," and then go on to say because they lose powers. Just "Druids will not wear metal armor."

Moreover, let's assume you're running a game and a Druid PC says "I'm going to put on this Half-Plate." How would you respond?

[stoutstien]

You know what's also a houserule? Having a Druid that wears metal armor at all. The rulebook very clearly states that Druids will not wear metal armor. And if a player springs that on me as a DM without any previous conversation, imposing a houserule of his own on a campaign I run, there would also be hell to pay.

The question is which armors are considered metal? Obviously plate and maybe half plate but splint, breastplate, or scale? How much metal IS metal?
If a DM rules studded leather is metal due to them having close set spikes or rivets is that RAW or a cuff ruling? By mass they probably have a similar ratio to a breastplate.

I agree completely a simple green box on the armor page with variant material right next to equipment size would have saved alot of grief.

[patchyman]

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?

The in-game mechanic is up to the DM. That is used a lot in this edition, including in the paladin example you bring up. 3e said that as a paladin, you fall if you commit one Evil act, and you must atone if you commit a Chaotic act. This edition says that you *may* if you do not follow your tenets. Personally, I prefer the greater flexibility of the new edition.

Maybe your DM will decide that the in-game mechanic is a penalty to social checks with other druids. Maybe he will decide that the penalty is that your spellcasting will impacted. As always, ask your DM ahead of time.

Nothing in the above means that there is no in-game mechanic.

[JNAProductions]

The in-game mechanic is up to the DM. That is used a lot in this edition, including in the paladin example you bring up. 3e said that as a paladin, you fall if you commit one Evil act, and you must atone if you commit a Chaotic act. Personally, I prefer the greater flexibility of the new edition.

Maybe your DM will decide that the in-game mechanic is a penalty to social checks with other druids. Maybe he will decide that the penalty is that your spellcasting will impacted. As always, ask your DM ahead of time.

Nothing in the above means that there is no in-game mechanic.

Then why isn't it the same for a Barbarian who wears heavy armor? Or a Monk who wears armor at all?

[diplomancer]

Diplomancer, do you understand my and other's main complaint about this?

It's imposing a mechanical limitation with no penalties for breaking it. If there was a rule that stated something akin to the houserule I posted above, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a rule I'd certainly be willing to lift for a player, or just in general, but it'd be a solid rule.

What it is now is controlling PC actions without applying any mechanical effects. Not "Druids cannot wear metal armor," and then go on to say because they lose powers. Just "Druids will not wear metal armor."

Moreover, let's assume you're running a game and a Druid PC says "I'm going to put on this Half-Plate." How would you respond?

He just springs it on me like that, which means I have to adjudicate the results of his actions? Probably what I suggested above, for every day he wears it he irrevocably loses a druid level and gains a nature cleric level. So, first day is "you feel the way you relate to nature is changing, are you sure you want to keep this?" (And explain to the player what that means mechanically. If he wants that, he wants that, if he doesn't, he won't wear the armor, since druids won't wear metal armor)

Or, if he really wants it for fluff and not mechanical reasons, let him have it as a reskinned studded leather armor.

If he says "I want the mechanical benefit of +3 AC without any mechanical drawback" I will answer "that is not an option", the same way I would answer any player that says "I want +3 AC, can I have it?"

[Misterwhisper]

He just springs it on me like that, which means I have to adjudicate the results of his actions? Probably what I suggested above, for every day he wears it he irrevocably loses a druid level and gains a nature cleric level. So, first day is "you feel the way you relate to nature is changing, are you sure you want to keep this?" (And explain to the player what that means mechanically. If he wants that, he wants that, if he doesn't, he won't wear the armor, since druids won't wear metal armor)

Or, if he really wants it for fluff and not mechanical reasons, let him have it as a reskinned studded leather armor.

If he says "I want the mechanical benefit of +3 AC without any mechanical drawback" I will answer "that is not an option".

This is where I don't see the problem.

If one of my players is playing a Druid, and they want say, a breastplate armor, the simple answer is, "sure, you can find some made of shell or chitin, just add 10% to the cost, or normal cost if you make it yourself."

The idea of making house rules on penalties for metal armor is much more of a hassle than it is to just make some normal metal armor out of other material.

It is not much of a stretch to see a breastplate, half-plate, and full plate out of non-metal, a little harder to figure out a chain shirt or chainmail.

I am not sure if it is in the Eberron book coming out soon but it used to have other non-metal armors in it, also the Scarred Lands book has multiple different armors and weapons.

[Hail Tempus]

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".

The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

[JNAProductions]

The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing.

If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions.

[Willie the Duck]

The restriction on the druid wearing metal armor is in the proficiency portion of the Druid section of the PHB. That's not a fluff restriction, that's a mechanical restriction. You might not like it, and you're free to houserule it away in your game, but the restriction is pretty clear in the PHB that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal for so many people. Druids have a lot of things going for them. There's no real reason they need an AC boost.

As everyone in thread on that side has made repeatedly clear, it is not about the AC, but in the manner in which the rule is given. It isn't that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor, but instead that they won't (despite otherwise PC decisions usually being handed off to the players). That is the issue. The end result is the same, but some times and to some people, the distinction is meaningful. I personally have no strong opinions on the actual issue at hand, but I dislike misrepresenting other peoples' arguments or the issues that they have with something.

[diplomancer]

This is where I don't see the problem.

If one of my players is playing a Druid, and they want say, a breastplate armor, the simple answer is, "sure, you can find some made of shell or chitin, just add 10% to the cost, or normal cost if you make it yourself."

The idea of making house rules on penalties for metal armor is much more of a hassle than it is to just make some normal metal armor out of other material.

It is not much of a stretch to see a breastplate, half-plate, and full plate out of non-metal, a little harder to figure out a chain shirt or chainmail.

I am not sure if it is in the Eberron book coming out soon but it used to have other non-metal armors in it, also the Scarred Lands book has multiple different armors and weapons.

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.

Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing.

If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions.

So you would be ok if the DM lets you do it but just gives you the same AC as you would have with studded leather, since it's not a mechanical issue?

[Hail Tempus]

Because it's not a mechanical issue. It's an issue of the game forcing certain behaviors and actions on a PC with no mechanical backing.

Then play something else if you don't like the restriction on Druids. I don't like the sorcerer's limited number of known spells, so I don't play one. Problem solved.

If the proficiencies section was "Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, and Hide armor," that'd be a bit wonky, but fine.,
If there was a section that said "Druids who wear metallic armor cannot cast their spells or Wild Shape while in it," that'd be a bit annoying, but fine.

The issue is it just says "If you play a Druid, your character won't do this." When I'm a PC, I want to control my character's actions.

As a player, you only get to control your PC within the boundaries of the rules. One of the rules is that a Druid won't wear metal armor. Again, if that restriction is too onerous for you, play some other character class.

The idea that you can play your character however you want without any restrictions is nonsense.

[JNAProductions]

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.

So you would be ok if the DM lets you do it but just gives you the same AC as you would have with studded leather?

You appear to be missing the point. Willie the Duck's last point is pretty clear on the issue.

Then play something else if you don't like the restriction on Druids. I don't like the sorcerer's limited number of known spells, so I don't play one. Problem solved.

As a player, you only get to control your PC within the boundaries of the rules. One of the rules is that a Druid won't wear metal armor. Again, if that restriction is too onerous for you, play some other character class.

The idea that you can play your character however you want without any restrictions is nonsense.

The idea that I can just say "I kill all the bad guys and save the princess and live happily ever after" is nonsense, I agree.

But the idea that I can control what my PC chooses to do? Why is that nonsense? Why is it that a Sorcerer has an explicitly limited amount of spells known, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal armor? Why is a Barbarian perfectly capable of wearing heavy armor, they just suffer penalties/lose benefits from it, but a Druid just "won't" wear metal?

Moreover, if I'm a Barbarian, what if I say "My character takes a deep breath and calms down." That's against what Barbarians do! Surely I shouldn't be allowed to do that!

[Hail Tempus]

As everyone in thread on that side has made repeatedly clear, it is not about the AC, but in the manner in which the rule is given. It isn't that druids are not allowed to wear metal armor, but instead that they won't (despite otherwise PC decisions usually being handed off to the players). That is the issue. The end result is the same, but some times and to some people, the distinction is meaningful. I personally have no strong opinions on the actual issue at hand, but I dislike misrepresenting other peoples' arguments or the issues that they have with something.

It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares how the rule is presented? The result is the same- no metal armor for Druids.

[diplomancer]

You appear to be missing the point. Willie the Duck's last point is pretty clear on the issue.

Is the answer to my last question yes? Would you be ok if the DM did that? Would you feel your character's free will isnot being restricted?

[JNAProductions]

It's a distinction without a difference. Who cares how the rule is presented? The result is the same- no metal armor for Druids.

It's really not. Even if you can make the argument that it's purely feeling, guess what? This is a game. How it makes you feel matters.

Is the answer to my last question yes? Would you be ok if the DM did that? Would you feel your character's actions are not being restricted?

What happens if someone else puts on the armor? Do they still only get studded leather stats?

What if I get my Barbarian friend's half-plate, which he no longer needs because his Unarmored Defense meets or exceeds his armored AC?

[stoutstien]

As I said, that's what I would probably do around levels 6-8. Druid will find some non-metal breastplate or half-plate. Player will be as happy as if he'd got a magical item, and his AC would progress accordingly, in tandem with other players. Everyone is happy, class balance and identity is preserved.

If you have a problem with the power level of druid, which is a fair concern if the player knows what they're doing, I don't think trying to hamstring them by restricting armor by arbitrarily deciding which armors are metal enough to impose some form of DM fiat is a logical course of action.
If anything it's going to hurt the land circles the most which are sitting at the bottom of popularity already. Moon could care less and it probably a wash for dream, Shep, and spore. Well spore wants better AC and if I wanted to player one i'd clear the air with the table on what armor i could use before I'd even consider it.

*if you really want to keep casters from getting too good of armor too easily just have proficiencies from multiclass round down and not up. So if a druid grabs a level of cleric they still have to wear medium armor to use druid spells and so on. Same for wizard/ cleric, paladin/sorcerer or warlock.