The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.
Thats the problem. So many vegetarians are closet meat eaters.
Well, no, not really.
The DM is not supposed to say anything, because you the player aren't supposed to try.
If you do try, it's on you to come up with what happens.
What do you want to happen, Sword?
No, don't tell me, just use your answer in your campaign.
Nah, the Druid armors restriction is still a completely dumb rule, because of the story explanation being inconsistent with all the rest of technologies or "civilized" tools that they can use, from crossbows to any crafting tools for example.
In addition, every time a designers starts mentioning "this has been there since the 1st edition" as a supposed justification, he immediately loses my trust and respect. They have removed or changed sacred cows at any editions, and "this has been there since the 1st edition" is as good a reason to keep something as it is an equally good reason to remove it.
I disagree with your assessment. By removing restrictions, even if they seem like arbitrary restrictions you remove the need for the class. Why have druids at all if you can just make a nature cleric and keep the armor proficiencies that a cleric gets? Its the argument that broke out in 4rth edition with paladins & clerics. Why have a paladin as a specific holy warrior when clerics are the holy warriors of their faith? The original cleric concept was taken from Hospitlar & Templar knights from the crusades. Paladins were meant to be that one in a million warrior who actually is a true white knight that champions goodness, law and the common weal. Not a vainglorious warrior absorbed in himself. But now clerics have almost everything a paladin has with regards to weapon & armor training, especially if she takes a militant domain such as war or storms. Its when designers start making the classes all cookie cutter that they lose their flavor and become identical. Then the game breaks down because its all about combat instead of the characters.
It's been all about combat for a long time now. Combat has always been the largest component of the base game. That's not to say people haven't done other types of campaigns, but D&D has always focused heavily on combat. For whatever reason people like the thrill of murder-hoboing or the by its more ancient terms: looting and pillaging. The idea of being a mercenary strong enough to wander a dangerous world surviving by your combat power, while accumulating vast treasure and magic is an appealing one. The sense of freedom, power, adventure, and thrill all combines to make being a powerful, rich murder hobo aka raider/adventurer good fun.
Because at no other point does a game rule dictate what a PC does or does not like, or what they will or won't do. That's for the player to decide, not the rules.Why can't people come to grips with the fact that druids just don't like to wear metal armor?