D&D 5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

Ohmyn · Jun 20, 2019

5ekyu said:
Unless, the designer felt it did not need to be a cant, wanted to leave it flexible to cover the variety of lore (sometimes contradictory) across editions and setting and they knew it wasnt gonna break anything if a gm decided for their setting it was fine to go with any proficient - as sage replied.

See, its almost like they chose a more GM ruling centered approach as opposed to a one-rule for all for this non-balance bresking element of mis-matching legacy.

If they wanted to leave it flexible to cover a variety of lore, it shouldn't go into the Class Features, but rather go into the lore sections of the class, like they do for every other class, and then actually add some narrative to said lore. The Sage's response was problematic because it didn't actually address anything except say that there used to be such a limitation back in the original PHB before Forgotten Realms lore was even a thing. Sure, of course a DM can rule whatever the heck they want about anything, and saying something so obvious doesn't answer the concerns with how the line is worded and placed into the Class Features. When a question or concern is raised about a ruling, it's lazy for the Sage Advice to just say "Your DM can just ignore it." The Sage Advice specifically said "If you want to depart from your class's story", but they don't actually provide any story within the class as to why there's a taboo against metal, and ignore the fact that there's a deity in the base 5E pantheon that specifically tell their Druids that it's fine to wear metal, and actually highly encourages it.

Paul Farquhar said:
That is your interpretation. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that. It has the advantage of not being subject to the Heat Metal spell and certain other traps that key of metal.

Actually there is. It says so right in the description of the armor. "This crude armor consists of thick furs and pelts. It is commonly worn by Barbarian tribes, evil humanoids, and other folk who lack access to the tools and materials needed to create better armor." Studded leather is simply better, as it's also a leather armor and therefore not affected by anything that keys off metal, is a light armor, weighs less, has no dexterity cap, and is stated in the Sage Advice to be a common armor for Druids. There's literally no reason to wear hide unless your DM puts you into a poverty campaign, or your DEX is at a +2 or less AND your DM doesn't count encumbrance (with a low base strength, as most Druids have, every pound counts).

Paul Farquhar said:
The purpose of this rule is because for many people finding non-metallic armour for a druid character is a fun sidequest.

I'm okay with that, and I also encourage players and DMs to do what's fun, but that sounds more like a good reason to place the line into their lore block and not weasel it into the proficiencies of their Class Features block.

Sword of Spirit · Jun 20, 2019

Totally agree with the OP, and as far as I'm concerned, the issue addressed in point 1 is offensive enough that the remaining ones aren't even needed.

This whole thing could have at least been partially mitigated if they had inserted the word "most" in front of "druids will not wear".

trancejeremy · Jun 20, 2019

I think you're actually looking at it backwards. It's not that Druids are not-allowed to wear metal armor, it's they are allowed to wear non-metal armor.

Thematically, Druids shouldn't wear any armor at all. AFAIK, there weren't any reports of them wearing it when the Romans attacked them (and bear in mind, the Celts probably invented chainmail, so presumably they would have had access to it).

However, because in D&D clerics were originally somewhat warlike and could use armor, and druids were a subclass of cleric, they were allowed to use leather armor with the justification it was natural. It's a somewhat strained explanation, like how they could use scimitars, but it made sense from a game mechanic point of view and it set them apart from clerics

5ekyu · Jun 20, 2019

Ohmyn said:
If they wanted to leave it flexible to cover a variety of lore, it shouldn't go into the Class Features, but rather go into the lore sections of the class, like they do for every other class, and then actually add some narrative to said lore. The Sage's response was problematic because it didn't actually address anything except say that there used to be such a limitation back in the original PHB before Forgotten Realms lore was even a thing. Sure, of course a DM can rule whatever the heck they want about anything, and saying something so obvious doesn't answer the concerns with how the line is worded and placed into the Class Features. When a question or concern is raised about a ruling, it's lazy for the Sage Advice to just say "Your DM can just ignore it." The Sage Advice specifically said "If you want to depart from your class's story", but they don't actually provide any story within the class as to why there's a taboo against metal, and ignore the fact that there's a deity in the base 5E pantheon that specifically tell their Druids that it's fine to wear metal, and actually highly encourages it.

Actually there is. It says so right in the description of the armor. "This crude armor consists of thick furs and pelts. It is commonly worn by Barbarian tribes, evil humanoids, and other folk who lack access to the tools and materials needed to create better armor." Studded leather is simply better, as it's also a leather armor and therefore not affected by anything that keys off metal, is a light armor, weighs less, has no dexterity cap, and is stated in the Sage Advice to be a common armor for Druids. There's literally no reason to wear hide unless your DM puts you into a poverty campaign, or your DEX is at a +2 or less AND your DM doesn't count encumbrance (with a low base strength, as most Druids have, every pound counts).

I'm okay with that, and I also encourage players and DMs to do what's fun, but that sounds more like a good reason to place the line into their lore block and not weasel it into the proficiencies of their Class Features block.

"If they wanted to leave it flexible to cover a variety of lore, it shouldn't go into the Class Features, but rather go into the lore sections of the class, like they do for every other class, and then actually add some narrative to said lore."

Or, alternatively, it should be right where it is with no prescribed mechanicals so that the GMs can apply it to varying degrees as they see fit.

See, seems to me this thread started pointing out how uniquely it was but now the argument is that it should be homogenized even down to formatting?

Huh?

Alternative viewpoint, they disagreed with you on this and didn't by mistake put it where it is written how it is but rather, they did it with intent. It's a bit of non-binding permission.

Li Shenron · Jun 20, 2019

Good OP, the restriction is simply a bad design job.

A Druid could go to some sort of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks adventure, find an alien futuristic high-tech armor that's made of plastic-crystal-dark-anti-nuclear-blackhole-matter that is not metal, and wear it without problems.

Ohmyn · Jun 20, 2019

ccs said:
I'm sorry, but you do not get to sit here in 5e & demand that {optional/essentially optional} rules from previous editions must be valid. Besides, I don't see you also demanding that your lv advancement be limited by the Druidicide spelled out in the 1e PHB.

Go ahead, admit it. You don't really want/envision chain or plate wearing druids, you just want a higher AC. Wich every druid player ever has wanted. So just MC a single lv of barbarian for the unarmoured defense....
Or bring it up in a reasonable manner to your DM & see how they feel about it. (though it sounds like you did & got told "No", thus your rant)

I'm not demanding anything. The point is that the Sage Advice says that it's a story feature of the class, but core 5E does not provide any new story for the class, and then throws in a random line in the Druid's proficiencies without any further expansion on either narrative or mechanics. Also, following a deities tenants is not exactly an optional rule outside of the DM arbitrarily denying a deity. Even though the deity originates from older editions, its lore has not changed since its inception in AD&D. If the armor restriction is a story element, as stated by the Sage Advice, then I fail to see how utilizing the lore exactly as written when building a character isn't within the nature of the story.

Also, while it's not relevant enough to address in further detail, just as a note on my idea of Druid for my characters, I envision them as finding it more acceptable to transform the ores provided by the earth versus desecrating the body of a beast by transforming its flesh into something unnatural via methods devised by culture. Even if I were my Wood Elf option with a +4 DEX (good rolls), I'd still take a Scale Mail over Studded Leather on a Druid any day.

ccs said:
As for how you have proficiency in an armor you've never trained in?
Have you ever heard of this thing called m a g i c?
Perhaps it's a divine boon granted by your god

Yes, I've heard of that. That's exactly what deities like Mielikki do, both for Clerics and Druids, but apparently that canon lore goes against the story of the Druid class now, so it's difficult to imagine how it works for them now with no explanation given.

Ohmyn · Jun 20, 2019

5ekyu said:
Or, alternatively, it should be right where it is with no prescribed mechanicals so that the GMs can apply it to varying degrees as they see fit.

That's exactly what the lore sections are for. The Class Features are for mechanics. The lore is for role playing and GM consideration for story options.

5ekyu said:
See, seems to me this thread started pointing out how uniquely it was but now the argument is that it should be homogenized even down to formatting?

It's not about formatting. When something is placed into the core Class Features section it is a mechanical rule. The problem falls on putting a mechanical rule into the core features and starting it with a "won't" instead of a "can't", and not addressing it in either lore or mechanics.

5ekyu said:
Alternative viewpoint, they disagreed with you on this and didn't by mistake put it where it is written how it is but rather, they did it with intent. It's a bit of non-binding permission.

I would say this is the worst possible outcome of them all. If they did it with intent to be where it is and say what it says, then that means they intended point 1 in my rant, which means they actually made a mechanical rule that controls the player's ability to make decisions, which is literally the worst mechanic that could be made. Even the vows in the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds could be ignored. Sure, they'd lose them, but the player fully had the choice to act however they saw fit.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 20, 2019

Ohmyn said:
There's literally no reason to wear hide unless your DM puts you into a poverty campaign

Or for roleplaying, or because you hear that the DM is planning on sending you into White Plume Mountain, or because +3 Hide is better than non-magic scale mail, or the adventure takes place under water, or maybe you just want to train in medium armour. Marines run with backpacks full of rocks. In any case, some stuff is better than other stuff. So what?

I'm okay with that, and I also encourage players and DMs to do what's fun, but that sounds more like a good reason to place the line into their lore block and not weasel it into the proficiencies of their Class Features block.

Sure, it might have been better presented in an optional rule grey box. But it wasn't, and I don't think it matters enough to make it worth while starting that Time Machine Kickstarter in order to fix...

Dausuul · Jun 20, 2019

trancejeremy said:
Thematically, Druids shouldn't wear any armor at all. AFAIK, there weren't any reports of them wearing it when the Romans attacked them (and bear in mind, the Celts probably invented chainmail, so presumably they would have had access to it).

There also weren't reports of them turning into dinosaurs. If you want D&D druid lore to line up with actual historical druids... that ship done sailed a long time ago.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 20, 2019

Dausuul said:
There also weren't reports of them turning into dinosaurs. If you want D&D druid lore to line up with actual historical druids... that ship done sailed a long time ago.

D&D druids where more closely based on the romantic Victorian reinvention than actual history in the first place.