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

lowkey13 · Jun 20, 2019

*Deleted by user*

jasper · Jun 20, 2019

A druid is hippie wantabe cleric who wanted to get back to nature but was too lazy to use the internet to research gods with a nature domain. A druid is one the few classic classes which has kept it flavor/lore/etc restriction.
Number 4 of no non metal medium armour is the sole reason people hate the restriction. To me people who gripe about the restriction want the cool powers of a druid but not limits.
If I could do a rule change. If druid wore metal armor they would only be able cast cantrips. I will leave up to smarter posters to come with bu beep beep nice lore reason. No non metal medium armours would exist. Ever.
So play a druid and have no medium armor. Or just play a cleric with nature domain god.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 20, 2019

The main thing I find is that most players in the groups I play in really want nothing to do with gods of any description. Druids outnumber clerics by a factor of infinity.

Maxperson · Jun 20, 2019

It's not even a restriction at all in 5e. There's one line where it says that druids won't wear metal armor. Not can't. Won't. Making it a personal choice and not a restriction. What happens if a PC decides that he will? Nothing at all. All of his abilities work just fine with a druid wearing metal full plate and a metal shield.

lowkey13 · Jun 20, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Oofta · Jun 20, 2019

Good grief. This argument, again? In my campaign there's a simple answer. If your PC wears metal armor, they aren't a druid. Don't like the rule? Change it if you're the DM.

I don't really care about why or what the consequences are, without a house rule to change things if you wear metal armor you can't take the druid class. End of story. Sometimes the answer is simply "no". I'm not going to justify it, argue about it, discuss pros and cons, debate whether it's really a "rule" or just a suggestion. Druids won't wear metal armor. Period.

Dausuul · Jun 20, 2019

jasper said:
A druid is hippie wantabe cleric who wanted to get back to nature but was too lazy to use the internet to research gods with a nature domain. A druid is one the few classic classes which has kept it flavor/lore/etc restriction.
Number 4 of no non metal medium armour is the sole reason people hate the restriction. To me people who gripe about the restriction want the cool powers of a druid but not limits.

No, that is not the reason. I mostly play wizards, who get no armor at all, and have to devote a spell slot and a prepared spell to having a non-abysmal AC. But the wizard rules are straightforward: You are not proficient with any armor. You can put it on, but you can't cast spells if you do. If you want to wear armor and cast spells, here are the hoops you must jump through (multiclass, spend feats, or play a race with racial armor proficiency). All that is fine.

If druids were limited to proficiency with light armor and hide, I would have no problem with that. Even if they had an additional built-in restriction saying "You cannot use druid ability X while wearing Y armor, regardless of proficiency," that too would be fine--lots of classes have such restrictions, like monks.

Where I have a problem is a restriction which is presented as if it were a rule, but is not written clearly enough for an actual rule (which armors count as metal? what replacement options exist, if any? what happens if you do wear metal armor?), and when asked for clarification, the designers say "This is just a story thing, you can wear metal armor and it won't affect game balance if your DM is okay with it." Say what? Of course it affects game balance, metal armor is a lot better than non-metal armor! If druids were meant to be medium armor wearers, that ought to be spelled out in the rules and the non-metal restriction clearly presented as a non-binding story element. If not, that should also be spelled out, including details of precisely which armors are forbidden, and consequences imposed for wearing them.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 20, 2019

Nope, wizards are not restricted. A wizard with the appropiate proficiency (e.g. a dwarf) can wear armour and cast spells. And the game doesn't break. This is because, due to bounded accuracy, AC only has a significant effect if it's over about 20. Wizards and druids are still too squishy to stand in the front row even with breastplates. Druids are actually assumed to default to AC 16 - Barkskin. But it's easy enough to do better by choosing a suitable race - Lizardfolk, Tortle, Warforged etc. So you won't break anything by letting your druids wear breastplates if they want. The only thing you are losing is the fun minigame of Hunt the Non-metal Armour.

DEFCON 1 · Jun 20, 2019

Why are you people venting about the metal armor for druids rule when there is a new and perfectly good "they're going to revamp the ranger again!" thread to vent in? At least that thread has the possibility of your opinions having an effect.

Dausuul · Jun 20, 2019

DEFCON 1 said:
Why are you people venting about the metal armor for druids rule when there is a new and perfectly good "they're going to revamp the ranger again!" thread to vent in? At least that thread has the possibility of your opinions having an effect.

I am a forum multitasker. I can complain about druids and rangers at the same time.