Fluff vs. Mechanics

[Valmark]

So you allow totem barbarian to get full resistance will raging in plate? RAW says yes.
Trying to defend DM decisions behind following RAW will lead to inconsistent rulings because the rules themselves are inconsistent.

The only real question is if a druid in medium armor is unbalanced or not. Multiclassing and feats are both variant rules which should be handled separately due to the pile of other problems they bring to the game.

Honestly, the rules in this case aren't incosistent. It clearly states that the wolf (or was it the eagle?) feature can't be used in heavy armor so it stands to reason that the bear one is meant to work anyway. And it makes sense, since the toughness shouldn't be influenced by the armor (different from how much strenght you can exert or how nimble you can be)

I've never actually heard a druid player in real life complain about this restriction. It seems to be an internet-only thing.

Same here, though my circle is restricted so it can happen that no one complains.



I was sure to have quoted the guy who said it but anyway, I didn't know there were pre-made alternative materials. It makes more sense to give proficiency then.

[Valmark]

So, unless I'm playing a Dwarf (or some other that grants medium armor proficiencies), then being a 1st-level Whatever means that I learned all my armor proficiencies from however I became a Whatever. In the case of Druids, I learned it from Druid School (or possibly from Mother Nature herself, directly). So if they are so adamantly against wearing metal armor*,

THEN WHY DID THEY TEACH ME?!

As a 1st-level non-Dwarf, I don't gain my armor proficiencies from any other source. THEY instructed me in its use. THEY strapped me in a breastplate over and over and over. THEY took someone who was at disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks and so on, and THEY molded me into someone who could use that armor without those penalties (or, depending on the armor, only penalties on Stealth checks).

Why put forth that effort in the first place only to turn around later and essentially lobotomize me?

*

Spoiler

Show

Not against wearing metal, just metal armor. Deck your Druid out in all the magical and mundane metal clothing you can find. Metal belts, metal boots, metal headbands, metal socks, as long as the metal thing isn't doing anything to your AC, Druids can willingly wear it with nary a second thought.

Also, there's no such thing as "gaining +3 AC for nothing". You're paying for it the same as everyone else. It costs more, it weighs more, it requires the appropriate proficiency (that you have to, and indeed DID, pay for by being a 1st-level Druid), it may still impose disadvantage on Stealth and imposes a Dex cap on your AC (or a slightly higher Dex cap via a feat THAT YOU ALSO PAY FOR). You are the payingest paying dude who ever paid for anything; none of it was for free or got conjured up out of thin air.

Forgot to quote this. They teach him because there are medium armors without metal. Also, as another one said, you can make it with other materials.

As for the spoiler, yeah that makes little sense. They shouldn't have specified armor/shield (or not limit metal)

[micahaphone]

On a completely different previous point, I'd be delighted to have an 8ft tall dwarf at my table. Sounds like an interesting character! Do they have a mutation or a curse? Would they biologically be human/goliath, but were raised by dwarves, like how Captain Carrot is recognized as a dwarf? I'd have fun working with my player to mark biology vs culture and workshopping their backstory to fit in the curse or experimentation or other cool mystery.

[patchyman]

This is every reason not to follow a rule. Rules have no moral imperative, they are there to make the game fun. If it makes the game less fun it is a bad rule.

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

[JNAProductions]

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

The rules of a game are the ones with mechanical impact. At least, that's the definition I'd use.

Cure Wounds has a range of touch. That's mechanics-you cannot cast Cure Wounds from 10' away unless you have 10' reach, or use Metamagic.
Healing Words takes a bonus action to cast. You cannot cast it as an action (barring houserules) nor as a reaction.
Barbarian Rage loses pretty much all their bonuses if in heavy armor.
If you wear non-proficient armor, you have disadvantage on most things and cannot cast spells.

But there's no mechanics in place for a Druid who wears metal armor-by my definition, it's NOT a rule.

Edit: But everyone having fun is definitely the most important thing. DM and players alike.

[Tectorman]

Forgot to quote this. They teach him because there are medium armors without metal. Also, as another one said, you can make it with other materials.

As for the spoiler, yeah that makes little sense. They shouldn't have specified armor/shield (or not limit metal)

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

[diplomancer]

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

Or you could assume that, whatever this "training" means, if it works for hide, it works for the other medium armors. Notice that, unlike weapon proficiencies, there are (to my knowledge), no "specific" proficiency in any armor.

[micahaphone]

I agree that it's very poorly inplemented or explained in the rules, but maybe druid circles have their version of a "blacksmith" who trades for and works with nonmetal materials for creating armor. So you won't find it in a general village store, but if you know the right places to go you totally could pick up nonmetal armor.

[Valmark]

So either they commit the Druidic blasphemy of training their initiates with metal armor, just on the off-chance said initiate finally comes across a non-metal breastplate, or we need the assumption that non-metal breastplates et al are just as common as metal ones (as in, costing not so much as one single copper piece more than normal and requiring a "quest" to find that can be summarized as "Hey, Shopkeep, do you have this in non-metal?" "At the end of the aisle.")

Why would they train initiates in metal armor if they can use other kinds? Besides, they could just train them in hide.

A fighter knows from the start how to use a full plate, but I don't think most 1st level fighter have laid their hands on one of those armors.

Also, said different materials (which I'm going to search now because it's a bit to vague now that I think of it) might be easily findable depending on the place. It stands to reason that a druidic circle would have them.

EDIT: Only alternative materials I found were adamantine and mythral, so they need to be house-ruled. The hide thing and the fighter example still stand though

[KorvinStarmast]

So if they are so adamantly against wearing metal armor*,

THEN WHY DID THEY TEACH ME?!

A number of reasons.
1. All dwarfs learn about medium armor; it's a dwarf thing.
2. Dwarfs who later want to be unusual and become druids then embrace the Druid thing. Specific Over General.
3. Not all dwarves who work in the mines wander about in breast plates.
4. There is at least one medium armor that is not medium: dragon hide. There may be other such armor. (Such as a breast plate made from a giant turtle or a dragon turtle's shell) that will either arise in a home brew campaign or may feature in some future adventure ... and the druid is good to wear that.

OK, I'll withdraw from this discussion now as the druid/medium armor thing seems to attract a lot irreconcilable differences types of feelings ...

EDIT: sorry, I missed a few posts and for some reason thought we were talking about a dwarf druid.

[micahaphone]

Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

[Valmark]

A number of reasons.
1. All dwarfs learn about medium armor; it's a dwarf thing.
2. Dwarfs who later want to be unusual and become druids then embrace the Druid thing. Specific Over General.
3. Not all dwarves who work in the mines wander about in breast plates.
4. There is at least one medium armor that is not medium: dragon hide. There may be other such armor. (Such as a breast plate made from a giant turtle or a dragon turtle's shell) that will either arise in a home brew campaign or may feature in some future adventure ... and the druid is good to wear that.

OK, I'll withdraw from this discussion now as the druid/medium armor thing seems to attract a lot irreconcilable differences types of feelings ...

Actually in that example he was talking about non-dwarfs. Someone else talked about making a Dwarf Druid.

Where is dragon hide?

Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

This sounds cool as hell

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually in that example he was talking about non-dwarfs. Someone else talked about making a Dwarf Druid.

Oops, sorry, I got all crossed up. my bad.

Where is dragon hide? This sounds cool as hell

DMG. Also in the SRD page 219.

Dragon Scale Mail
Armor (scale mail), very rare (requires attunement)
Dragon scale mail is made of the scales of one kind of dragon. {snip} While wearing this armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, you have advantage on saving throws against the Frightful Presence and breath weapons of dragons, and you have resistance to one damage type that is determined by the kind of dragon that provided the scales (see the table).

Additionally, you can focus your senses as an action to magically discern the distance and direction to the closest dragon within 30 miles of you that is of the same type as the armor. This special action can’t be used again until the next dawn.
Dragon Resistance
Black Acid
Blue Lightning
Bronze Lightning
Gold Fire
Green Poison
Brass Fire
Red Fire
Silver Cold
Copper Acid
White Cold

[Tvtyrant]

I agree subject to two important caveats: first, the fun of everyone around the table is important, including the DM, not just the fun of the player wishing to play the druid. Second, starting with “it’s not really a rule” feels like an excuse, not an explanation.

Unless the AC of the Druid would become untenable it really shouldn't effect the rest of the group's fun. I personally think the Druid has too narrow a fluff, there are lots of other reasons you would be a Druid rather then Hippy Jam Band Festival goer. Someone with a reverence for kill, survival of the fittest could easily be a metal wielding Druid (think Dehaka from SCII.)

It also assumes crunch is more immutable then fluff, like the deciding factor is that it isn't a real rule and not whether it is a good or bad rule.

[patchyman]

Bone/antler armor would be cool. It'd also clack and rattle, still giving you disadvantage on stealth checks

Not even a druid thing, but in my latest campaign, I sent the 1st level characters against an ankheg. After the fight, the ranger skinned the creature and to it to a leatherworker to transform it into a medium armor. Don’t remember what type exactly, but it boosted his AC by 1.

[ad_hoc]

Congratulations to the Druid w/ metal armor debate for pointing out, AGAIN, what a piss poor job Mearls and Crawford do at creating a RPG. Its really disappointing considering what a great concept 5e has over all, that the poorly written minutiae repeatedly become points of contention.

5e's popularity is unprecedented and 99% of people have no problem understanding that a druid won't wear metal armour.

The game is very well designed.

[Keravath]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

[Kane0]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Where is dragon hide?

Behind that barrel, you can see the tail sticking out

[diplomancer]

There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

[Valmark]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

Yup. That's why I'm having this much fun reading this topic

Behind that barrel, you can see the tail sticking out

I was brushing my teeth while in front of a mirror.
I couldn't see my reflection anymore, damn you xD

Oops, sorry, I got all crossed up. my bad.

DMG. Also in the SRD page 219.

Oh, cool. Kinda wished there were more things like this, possibly even mundane, but good to see it.

Not even a druid thing, but in my latest campaign, I sent the 1st level characters against an ankheg. After the fight, the ranger skinned the creature and to it to a leatherworker to transform it into a medium armor. Don’t remember what type exactly, but it boosted his AC by 1.

And THIS is the answer to everything. Especially the satisfaction to see the players act like this.
Too bad in the group irl we've been fighting so little skinnable monsters or other reusable soon-to-be corpses. To get my armor I had to undress the bloodied corpse of a mindless slave (while getting judged by the cleric)

[stoutstien]

There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

so to address a problem that you have with druid's wild shapes you use armor limitations that has no impact on said feature? The player can be running around in a string bikini and it doesn't affect wild shapes.

[JNAProductions]

How do you get AC 18?

The best Medium Armor gives is 17, without MAM.

[Hail Tempus]

How do you get AC 18?

The best Medium Armor gives is 17, without MAM.

Most Druids carry a shield as well, so an AC 18 would be pretty standard if a breastplate or scale mail was allowed.

[JNAProductions]

Except Breastplates don’t have Stealth penalties...

[Tectorman]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

No. That's part of the objection, that "won't" infringes into player agency territory in a war that "can't" doesn't.

No matter why a player picks whichever class he does for his character, he pays those class features (either via the opportunity cost of not having another class's class features, or, if at higher level, via that opportunity cost PLUS the XP he paid). That's it. Transaction concluded. I've upheld my end.

Except that player-agency-violating language like "won't" turns the class features I paid for (just like if I were a Fighter or a Rogue) into the class features that I'm renting. Same cost, diminished return on my investment. In short, I just got fleeced, and that is not acceptable.

That's why I continue to hold the UA Oath of Treachery subclass for the Paladin as the best Oath of them all. Not for the subclass features that it has, but simply because it doesn't make demands it has no business making.

But it's not just a matter of "won't" versus "can't". "No reasons given" is "no reasons given" in both cases, and in both cases is insufficient.

"Barbarians cannot wear heavy armor, or they lose the use of Class Features Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks cannot wear armor of any kind, or they lose Class Features Blah, Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks can't wear armor (no idea what happens if they do)" is not. In like fashion, "Druids can't wear metal armor" is only marginally better than "Druids won't wear metal armor", and still not good enough.

[ezekielraiden]

No. That's part of the objection, that "won't" infringes into player agency territory in a war that "can't" doesn't.

No matter why a player picks whichever class he does for his character, he pays those class features (either via the opportunity cost of not having another class's class features, or, if at higher level, via that opportunity cost PLUS the XP he paid). That's it. Transaction concluded. I've upheld my end.

Except that player-agency-violating language like "won't" turns the class features I paid for (just like if I were a Fighter or a Rogue) into the class features that I'm renting. Same cost, diminished return on my investment. In short, I just got fleeced, and that is not acceptable.

That's why I continue to hold the UA Oath of Treachery subclass for the Paladin as the best Oath of them all. Not for the subclass features that it has, but simply because it doesn't make demands it has no business making.

But it's not just a matter of "won't" versus "can't". "No reasons given" is "no reasons given" in both cases, and in both cases is insufficient.

"Barbarians cannot wear heavy armor, or they lose the use of Class Features Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks cannot wear armor of any kind, or they lose Class Features Blah, Blah, Blah, and Blah" is fine. "Monks can't wear armor (no idea what happens if they do)" is not. In like fashion, "Druids can't wear metal armor" is only marginally better than "Druids won't wear metal armor", and still not good enough.

Just to confirm, here, your position is that this is fine:
"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

But this is not fine:
"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

Literally the only difference is "cannot" vs. "will not." I just want to be certain you're saying that that's the difference you need.

[Greywander]

Just to confirm, here, your position is that this is fine:
"Druids cannot wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

But this is not fine:
"Druids will not wear metal armor, because the sacred oaths they take as part of becoming a Druid forbid such equipment. If they do so, they cannot memorize or cast Druid spells until they remove the armor."

Literally the only difference is "cannot" vs. "will not." I just want to be certain you're saying that that's the difference you need.

Well, first of all, the rules say nothing about not being able to memorize or cast spells while wearing metal armor, so that by itself is already a difference with what's in the book. Part of the problem is that there is not given consequence for choosing to wear metal armor. By providing one, you solve half the problem that people like me have with this issue.

As for "won't" vs. "can't", yeah, pretty much. It's a bit awkwardly worded, though. The phrase "if they do" implies that they can, so to previously say that they "cannot" is a bit contradictory. I would instead word it something like this:

"The sacred oaths that druids take forbid wearing metal armor. While wearing metal armor, you are unable to memorize or cast druid spells until that armor is removed."

This eschews the "won't" vs. "can't" issue entirely. It gives the fluff justification (sacred oaths) and the mechanical justification (can't memorize or cast spells). This allows the player to make their own choices about what their character does, and defines the consequences of choosing to wear metal armor.

[Keravath]

Well, first of all, the rules say nothing about not being able to memorize or cast spells while wearing metal armor, so that by itself is already a difference with what's in the book. Part of the problem is that there is not given consequence for choosing to wear metal armor. By providing one, you solve half the problem that people like me have with this issue.

As for "won't" vs. "can't", yeah, pretty much. It's a bit awkwardly worded, though. The phrase "if they do" implies that they can, so to previously say that they "cannot" is a bit contradictory. I would instead word it something like this:

"The sacred oaths that druids take forbid wearing metal armor. While wearing metal armor, you are unable to memorize or cast druid spells until that armor is removed."

This eschews the "won't" vs. "can't" issue entirely. It gives the fluff justification (sacred oaths) and the mechanical justification (can't memorize or cast spells). This allows the player to make their own choices about what their character does, and defines the consequences of choosing to wear metal armor.

Whoever wrote it probably assumed that druids won't wear metal armor so consequences for doing so weren't needed since they wouldn't wear it.

"The sacred oaths of druids forsake the use of all metal armor. Druids won't wear metal armor." The implication being that a druid that chooses to wear metal armor is no longer a druid since if druids won't wear metal armor then a character that chooses to wear metal armor can not be a druid.

As for fluff justification, not wearing metal armor is as old as the druid class in D&D. You could check the reasons given in all the previous editions :)

[Addaran]

Just to clarify.

Is the entire druid metal armor argument over the choice of the rules writer to use the word "won't" rather than "can't" in the armor proficiencies section of the class description?

Won't implies some sort of limitation on the character's role playing choices? Can't just means there is some mechanical reason (not detailed) preventing a druid from wearing metal armor?

People are objecting to the suggestion of a rule limiting their role playing choices but have no objection to the rule limiting their mechanical choices ... and ALL of this hinges on the choice of "won't" vs "can't" ??

A bit, but there's more. Won't vs can't definitively is a big offender.

When it's based on morality, like in the paladin's case, they say what might happen when you don't follow the rule ( falling and losing your powers).

Mechanically, other classes ( barbarian, monk) will say what happen if you do wear (heavy) armor.

The game also already showed that they are okay going outside of the big categories ( monk and rogue with weapons). Could have done the same with armors. (light + hide). I don't remember if it's 5ed or previous edition, but i think mythral armor say you can cast spell without having proficiency? Could do the same for the dragon armors.

If it's balanced on druid not having too good AC, it doesn't make sense to also block it from other sources ( race, feat, multiclass). I don't think there's any other class that restrict what you can gain from a feat/race/multiclass (at most it's wasted cause you already have it and can use it)

There is actually a very reasonable mechanical argument to restrict Druid's access to the better medium armor at early levels. Namely, their wildshape. Starting around level 4, and in many games even as early as level 2, there is very little downside to a Druid staying in wildshape all the time during exploration (biggest downside is no speech, and there are ways around that, like developing sign language with your companions).

Which means that they basically bypass the disadvantage scale mail imposes, and, at the cost of their bonus action in the first round of combat, can start the combat with 18 AC with no stealth penalty (or, if they are a moon druid, can be knocked out of their wildshape and have 18 AC with no stealth penalty). No other class has that ability at early levels, unless they roll exceptionally well for their dex or are dex based and have defense as their fighting style, assuming in the first place this is not point-buy or standard array.

At later levels (6 to 8 is my personal assessment, it may vary from game to game) things balance out among all the classes, so it's reasonable to let them have access to other types of medium armor

That's what I would tell my players if they ever questioned the clear rule in the PHB.

That's actually the first balance argument i hear. Not sure if i agree, but it's a very valid reason.
I guess you could always say that a druid can't wildshape if he's wear a medium metal-armor (or just one that gives disadvantage) or that disadvantage from armors carry even in wildshape.