Fluff vs. Mechanics

[diplomancer]

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.



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?

Half-plate works as half-plate for everyone except Druids. Because nature is just that powerful, and that's what She wills. You still get to look good though and not like some scrawny rogue, so there is that benefit (I'm assuming here, of course, that this is the reason you want to wear half-plate, and not just have +3 AC with no mechanical drawback)

[Valmark]

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.

Clarify, Do you mean a DM that tells you the consequences once you're already wearing it? Because that's a normal reaction (to get angry I mean) homewever if you go buy a metal armor and then say that you want to put it on you can't get angry if the DM stops you and tells you what happens, since there was no reason to say it before.

Though I don't think removing a Druid's abilities for wearing metal armor is really an house rule. After all, it says that a druid will not wear metal armor. You wear it? You're not a druid, following logic.

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.

Exactly. If you tell the DM before alright, but if you come up suddenly saying "I've got this on" then you should be ready for harsh consequences.

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?

I'd respond "you'll lose your powers. You sure?" Like I would with any PC that's going to do a suicidal, non-sensical action (I'm assuming the druid doesn't have a reason beyond "I want a better AC, damn the rules and the DM"). Of course for other PCs the consequences are different.

Plus, if they got a reason like, say, "I need to camouflage as a guard to enter this place" I'd be ok with letting him wear it, only for the duration of the infiltration.

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.

True for the green box thing, as for the metal question, I think anything that has metal counts. Wasn't it like that in previous editions?

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

Because they have other reasons for their abilities not working, different from a religious taboo. At least, I see them as not being able to activate certain abilities because of impairment or things like that.

[Hail Tempus]

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.

The rule is pretty clear, and anyone who wants to play a Druid knows it's out there. "But I don't wannaaaaaa" isn't really an argument against following a rule.

[JNAProductions]

Half-plate works as half-plate for everyone except Druids. Because nature is just that powerful, and that's what She wills.

Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms.

---

To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

[stoutstien]

Clarify, Do you mean a DM that tells you the consequences once you're already wearing it? Because that's a normal reaction (to get angry I mean) homewever if you go buy a metal armor and then say that you want to put it on you can't get angry if the DM stops you and tells you what happens, since there was no reason to say it before.

Though I don't think removing a Druid's abilities for wearing metal armor is really an house rule. After all, it says that a druid will not wear metal armor. You wear it? You're not a druid, following logic.




Exactly. If you tell the DM before alright, but if you come up suddenly saying "I've got this on" then you should be ready for harsh consequences.




I'd respond "you'll lose your powers. You sure?" Like I would with any PC that's going to do a suicidal, non-sensical action (I'm assuming the druid doesn't have a reason beyond "I want a better AC, damn the rules and the DM"). Of course for other PCs the consequences are different.

Plus, if they got a reason like, say, "I need to camouflage as a guard to enter this place" I'd be ok with letting him wear it, only for the duration of the infiltration.



True for the green box thing, as for the metal question, I think anything that has metal counts. Wasn't it like that in previous editions?



Because they have other reasons for their abilities not working, different from a religious taboo. At least, I see them as not being able to activate certain abilities because of impairment or things like that.

Arguably all armor could have metal components(even quilted armor regularly have metal fasteners) so we have an issue from the get go of unquantified parameters for a class restriction that doesn't have parameters for what happens when you don't follow them. I think studded leather and scale mail are going to be the points of contention.

[diplomancer]

Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

[JNAProductions]

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

I don't give a hoot about the AC! Druids are a top-notch class even if they didn't have any armor proficiencies at all!

Why are you just assuming I'm lying about what I've said?

[redwizard007]

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.

On to more productive topics.

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

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

I guess the druid/armor thing is relevant here too. If they listed a reason and consequences then I could incorporate the Druid chassis into more builds.

[diplomancer]

I don't give a hoot about the AC! Druids are a top-notch class even if they didn't have any armor proficiencies at all!

Why are you just assuming I'm lying about what I've said?

So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking different.

[JNAProductions]

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.

On to more productive topics.

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

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

Yeah, I agree with this. While there's default fluff associated with each class, there's nothing really forcing you to stick to it.

I mean, take this example: You have a warrior of justice, from a long line of similar warriors, who sometimes goes too far in his crusade against evil.

You could be...

-A Paladin, possibly of Vengeance
-A Fighter with a strong moral code and anger issues
-A Barbarian, probably Ancestral Guardian

Or other classes too, those are just my initial thoughts on what fits best.

So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking good.

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.

It's changing the way the world works for what is, to me, a pretty damn stupid reason. It's not even adhering to what YOU say is important-in the game world, the Druid is wearing metal armor. You are the one who's arguing purely on mechanics. Which is an odd reversal for me, because I'm usually a mechanics first guy.

[Willie the Duck]

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

Clearly plenty of people (although, to be fair, we have no idea how prevalent it is that this is a big deal for people no on forums like this. We aren't very representative, I feel). Regardless, if people come to a thread and keep complaining about how the rule is presented (and not the AC or overall druid balance compared to other classes, or something like that), that, and not something else (such as the actual armor class value) is what they are complaining about. We do not get to choose why other people like or dislike something.

[Valmark]

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



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!

I'm quoting only for the last bit, because the barbarian can actually do that. He can end the rage whenever he wants.

Then that's horse crap. I don't see Clerics of Pelor not being able to hang out in dark rooms.

---

To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

Because druids are against wearing metal. They can use it, for example on weapons, since they do need utensils, but they won't wear it because *insert how you justify it*. In my case I see it as druids only revering untouched nature or nature nurtured through strictly natural ways. By extension working the metal in a forge by beating and burning it is a violence on it. I'm unaware if there are other ways to work it in D&D 5e.
That's the answer to the Dwarven.

As for the con artist, because to learn them you need to be attuned and follow the precets of the druids. Otherwise even if they try to teach you you won't be able to put them in practice.
You later specify that you aren't aligned with said precets. To me it feels like this background eouldn't even justify said powers in the first place. It's not like you can just look at a druid do his magic and learn, just like with a cleric and so on.

All of this assuming I'm not houseruling it being possible. As said before, if the whole party's ok with it then by all means. If it reveals to be too unbalancing then we'll fix it up later (although I doubt it would be)

Arguably all armor could have metal components(even quilted armor regularly have metal fasteners) so we have an issue from the get go of unquantified parameters for a class restriction that doesn't have parameters for what happens when you don't follow them. I think studded leather and scale mail are going to be the points of contention.

Yeah, they are the most confusing armors. That's why I consider the armor's description: if it specifies metal, you don't wear it, for the sake of semplicity. I can just invent new materials as a DM

[diplomancer]

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.

It's changing the way the world works for what is, to me, a pretty damn stupid reason. It's not even adhering to what YOU say is important-in the game world, the Druid is wearing metal armor. You are the one who's arguing purely on mechanics. Which is an odd reversal for me, because I'm usually a mechanics first guy.

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

(And pretty much nothing is capable of breaking verisimilitude for me in a world where halflings can go around carrying lionesses on their shoulders... nature magically changing what a suit of armor does as it suits Her is peanuts compared to that).

[Valmark]

You want the mechanical benefit. Be loud and proud about it, don't just say "oh, my Druid may do whatever he can, even if the rules go to the trouble of stating that he won't".

Or be happy for the DM that allows you to fluff your studded leather as half-plate while you are wearing it.

I think his point is that he doesn't want a limitation without a justification nor actual penalties for that limitation. It's simply being forced on him or anyone else who does a druid.

So why would you not be happy with that DM solution? It's allowing the druid to wear half-plate without the associated mechanical benefits or any mechanical drawbacks, he's just looking different.

The thing is that said rule that they are avoiding isn't explained, at least I think. Nor does it specify clearly a punishment.
At least I think that's what he and others who support the DruidxMetal ship mean, I'm a "no houserule" kind of guy so I can only interpret.

[Addaran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[diplomancer]

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

I am not too happy about those, actually, but they are the rules of the game, and I don't feel comfortable taking away from players things the rules of the game give to them, in the same way that, as a player, I don't want the dm to give me mechanical benefits that the rules say I shouldn't have.

(Out of this forum, I've had many friends from different D&D backgrounds playing druids, some playing since the druids first appeared, some who started playing with 5e, and everything in between. When I tell them about this debate, their usual reaction is to laugh and say "hey, PHB says that druids don't wear metal armor, so it never occurred to me to put it on". And that's where the debate ends, they've never tried putting it on to see what the DM would do, they just accept what the rules state about their character)

[intregus]

I only read the first few posts and I think there’s basically 2 schools of thought

1. The game mechanics should be played as written and any deviation should be shut down. The rules exist for a reason so follow them to a T.

2. The game exists for us to have fun and tell stories. Use the mechanics as you see fit to create the character you want and if you can’t try and make up some homebrew that fits as long as the rest of YOUR TABLE is ok with it.

Here’s how I handle what the book says. First and foremost Crawford has always said that the PHB is there as a resource for you table to use…a resource not the end all be all. EVERY table uses house rules and they should. No one, not even the designers of the game play 5e RAW straight from the PHB. SO I take it the second school of thought is the more accurate one to go off of. If the designers aren't playing RAW why should you or I?

The mechanics described in the game are also a generalization. The entire idea of a “class” (and there mechanics) is a generalization to help you as a player easily pick what kind of character you want to play. Do you want to play a sneaky assassin, the place to look first is going to be in the rogue class and assassin subclass, do you HAVE TO play that class/subclass combo to role play a sneaky assassin? Of course not, you can easily play that same character by playing a paladin class, never casting your spells and only using them as “smites” that you refluff as hitting a vital area on the target you are trying to assassinate. The mechanics are there for you to create what you want to play.

That being said fluff is there to help you play the character you want within a given setting. Fluff will ALWAYS be dictated by a setting. So guess what you, can’t fluff a bow and arrow or the firbolt cantrip to be gun when playing in my fantasy setting because guns do not exist. You can take those exact same mechanics and fluff them as a gun in my sci-fantasy setting though. Now I am not opposed to a PC spending time and resources inventing a gun though and then fluffing either of those options into being a gun. The idea is does it make sense for the setting.

Do you want to play a druid that won’t wear metal armor, what does the setting say. In the PHB druids won’t were metal armor because the writers thought that fits the fluff for druids in settings they will be publishing. BUT narrative is what matters. You are playing a game where you are a hero, you aren’t the average person or average druid or average anything.

For example in the old star wars universe there was race of beings who were not force sensitive, in fact they couldn’t be force sensitive and in both the SWd20 and SWsaga edition TTRPG if you played this race you could never use the force. Makes sense, the fluff fits the setting. By the way in the SW lore there was ONE of these species that WAS force sensitive and could use the force……. Even though the TTRPG rules stated this race could never become force sensitive and use the force there is an in universe exception to the rule. If I want to play the very very rare force sensitive alien that shouldn’t be force sensitive why shouldn’t I be allowed to just because the TTRPG says so even though in the actual lore it is possible?

So that’s my take on fluff vs mechanics. Let your setting dictate the fluff and let the fluff dictate the mechanics if it makes sense. If you find yourself restricting your characters’ option because of fluff written in the PHB ask your DM what is appropriate for the setting and ask for the change. There’s plenty of examples as to why a druid WOULD wear metal armor. Plus it makes NO logical sense to not use metal armor but be ok with using metal ANYTHING ELSE.

[stoutstien]

I am not too happy about those, actually, but they are the rules of the game, and I don't feel comfortable taking away from players things the rules of the game give to them, in the same way that, as a player, I don't want the dm to give me mechanical benefits that the rules say I shouldn't have.

(Out of this forum, I've had many friends from different D&D backgrounds playing druids, some playing since the druids first appeared, some who started playing with 5e, and everything in between. When I tell them about this debate, their usual reaction is to laugh and say "hey, PHB says that druids don't wear metal armor, so it never occurred to me to put it on". And that's where the debate ends, they've never tried putting it on to see what the DM would do, they just accept what the rules state about their character)

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.

[Tectorman]

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.

[patchyman]

---

To Valmark:

If my PC is a Dwarven Smith, one who's worked the forge for a century, and heeds the call of the earth, training in Druidic arts to eventually become one with the earth itself (Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape), why would I have a taboo against metal?

If my PC is a pragmatic con artist, who learned a few Druidic tricks from a lowly initiate of the circles, just enough to cast a few spells and wildshape, why would I have a taboo against metal?

In the second case, I can definitely see Druidic circles hating my PC for stealing their secrets, but why would I be able to have Druidic powers when I'm wholly against (or at least, not aligned at all with) them, but as soon as I wear metal, it's gone?

Those are really interesting characters. You should run them by your DM and point out that the metal armor restriction doesn’t make sense for them. Maybe the DM will houserule that they can wear armor.

If I made a tiefling fiendlock but I went for a cambion feel, so that her power came from her infernal heritage instead of a Patron, I would definitely ask my DM’s OK before debuting it. The situation you described seems comparable.

[diplomancer]

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.

Yes I would, and it's definitely not unbalanced. Getting 1 level in fighter (or a feat), giving up all your grappling advantages (and others) and your rage damage bonus for 1 AC point, all of that considering that it actually costs less to buy +1 half-plate than normal full-plate? Knock yourself out.

The only RAW exploit that I ban is, if it got to that level, the Wish+Simulacrum chain, because that exploit has severe world building implications.

[patchyman]

Verisimilitude. When a Barbarian (who has the exact same armor proficiencies as a Druid) wears it, it's AC 15+Dex Mod (Max 2). When A Druid wears it, suddenly it works completely differently, giving AC 12+Dex Mod.

(Tongue firmly in cheek). Preserving verisimilitude is easy: the goliath’s half-plate is too big for the Dwarf druid. Problem fixed!

[patchyman]

Clearly plenty of people (although, to be fair, we have no idea how prevalent it is that this is a big deal for people no on forums like this. We aren't very representative, I feel). Regardless, if people come to a thread and keep complaining about how the rule is presented (and not the AC or overall druid balance compared to other classes, or something like that), that, and not something else (such as the actual armor class value) is what they are complaining about. We do not get to choose why other people like or dislike something.

To amend what you said, I think it would be more accurate to say “at least a few...”

[47Ace]

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

(And pretty much nothing is capable of breaking verisimilitude for me in a world where halflings can go around carrying lionesses on their shoulders... nature magically changing what a suit of armor does as it suits Her is peanuts compared to that).

You are missing something important duids can wear half plate they just can't wear metal half-plate. Non metal half plate exist there is table of alternative materials in the treasure section of the DMG that includes non-metal options. There is even example of non metal medium armor in the magic items section. There is even a sage advice that clarifys that they have profiancy in all medium armor. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...ers-march-2016.
If they wanted druids to have nothing better then light armor they wouldn't have given them profiancy in it. Or they could have given them profiancy in light armor and hide. But, the didn't they gave them profiancy in all medium armor. A druid wearing non-metal half plate is getting exactly the AC there deserve not 3 extra.

[diplomancer]

You are missing something important duids can wear half plate they just can't wear metal half-plate. Non metal half plate exist there is table of alternative materials in the treasure section of the DMG that includes non-metal options. There is even example of non metal medium armor in the magic items section. There is even a sage advice that clarifys that they have profiancy in all medium armor. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...ers-march-2016.
If they wanted druids to have nothing better then light armor they wouldn't have given them profiancy in it. Or they could have given them profiancy in light armor and hide. But, the didn't they gave them profiancy in all medium armor. A druid wearing non-metal half plate is getting exactly the AC there deserve not 3 extra.

Which I already acknowledged, and even said that, in my estimation, druids should get that upgrade around levels 6-8, as a result of adventuring preferably, and that this solves all balance problems.

[Magicspook]

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".

My friends (both in my campaigns and as co-players) do this all the time. This is probably saying more about your players than about players in general?

[Hail Tempus]

My friends (both in my campaigns and as co-players) do this all the time. This is probably saying more about your players than about players in general?

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

[patchyman]

To answer the thread topic, I also believe that the fluff/mechanic distinction is artificial. The Player’s Handbook is a compendium of default rules that you should feel free to customize to improve your setting or your game.

As a DM, if a player comes to me with a neat character idea, I will absolutely work with them to incorporate the character in the game, even if this involves changing rules.

As a player, I will try to develop a memorable and original character within the rules of the setting. If such a character relies on a weird rules interpretation or modification, I would absolutely run it by them beforehand.

To be honest, this also applies to character traits that are 100% consistent with both fluff and mechanics. A large part of the session 0 is each player presenting their character and the DM either suggesting ways to integrate the character to the setting or troubleshooting if something doesn’t fit.

[47Ace]

Which I already acknowledged, and even said that, in my estimation, druids should get that upgrade around levels 6-8, as a result of adventuring preferably, and that this solves all balance problems.

Oh sorry I missed that. That sounds about right.

On a mildly unrelated note given the variation between how different classes get AC upgrades (with bigger ability scores, bigger ability scores and a bit of money, or just money) I wish that the DMG included a table of when different classes were expected to get AC buffs and to what so DM's had a guideline if they want to change money gain or treasure distribution rates without having to guess when AC item should show up.

[Tvtyrant]

The rule is pretty clear, and anyone who wants to play a Druid knows it's out there. "But I don't wannaaaaaa" isn't really an argument against following a rule.

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.