Their Ac is not significantly reigned in, they have somewhat harder time attaining great AC. They usually can still eventually get it, and high-tier non-metal magical armours exists in RAW. Also, I'm not starting to directly compare two different classes, there are too many variables. But the fact remains druids are generally considered among the more powerful classes, so balance reasons definitely do not require lifting this minor restriction from them.
Without homebrewed items or dragonscale (because while it is sort of raw, there are actually no non-metal armors listed except for dragonscale) then the best they can do without pumping Dex is 16... the starting AC for many characters. Including Monks.
Yes, if the DM allows them to, by homebrewing, they could increase that, but it isn't a guarantee obviously.
Also, Mood Druids are considered one of the more powerful classes. Druids in general, less so. And I find this amusing. You want to say "they are among the most powerful" but you don't want to compare them to the class that they represent the most, why? Is it because... they aren't more powerful than clerics, and in fact, with the clerics far easier time casting with a shield and superior armor access the cleric is actually usually considered a bit stronger?
Of course it is. Like a lot. It is far more important to have rules that cover situations that come up often than ones that cover rare edge cases. Sure, having rules that cover both, is even better, but priorities are perfectly obvious here.
Priority sure, but this isn't a discussion about "priority" this is a discussion about whether the restriction makes sense, and since the restriction only covers two possible things out of dozens... it kind of doesn't make any sense. You know, on that world-building level that you wanted to talk about before.
It is a rule that covers a common and important area, it is not an extensive treatise on druid beliefs. That is for you as GM to write if you care.
If I care? If I don't care about druidic beliefs why am I enforcing this stupid rule that makes no sense?
If you envy clerics so much, why not just play a nature cleric then? Or if you're not willing to give up your druid stuff like wildshape to gain metal armour, then that to me sound like successful balancing between the classes! both get something the other one doesn't.
And yeah, this constant comparison to clerics certainly makes sense, because the two classes are very similar. And that's exactly why I don't want them to become even more similar! I want druids to keep their own druid weirdness, such as not wearing metal. It is one of the things that sets these classes apart.
So, you admit that this has absolutely nothing to do with mechanical balance. Which, I'm going to remind you about when you bring it up, again, in accusing me that I'm trying to be a powergamer. It isn't about it for me, and it isn't about it for you.
And I don't envy clerics, the entire point is that if this was a balance concern, then clerics would be overpowered, because they are nearly identical to druids, and yet can use metal armor. And no, I don't think letting druids use metal armor would make them too similar. Personally, getting rid of the nature cleric makes the distinction stark. It is about what they follow, not whether or not they wear armor made of natural materials like metal.
I mean I obviously wouldn't make up such an armour in reality, because I don't want druids to were metal in the first place. But if this was not about powergaming then why wouldn't you be happy with it?
Because the DM suggesting it is obviously trying to make a point in "proving" that all I care about is power gaming, yet it wouldn't be power gaming to go hunt a giant croc and make half-plate armor out of its skin and bones. Which would give me a higher AC than the hide armor. That isn't power-gaming, but just going and buying half-plate armor is.
All it is is a shallow attempt to win virtue points by proving that I'm a bad person.
Yes. It is pointless and shouldn't exist. But as I said super early in this thread the armour table is full of pointless trap choices. And as this issue seems to cause so much gritting of teeth, it might be easier to just remove both hide armour and druid medium armour proficiency and call it a day.
It would work. Remove the Proficiency and the restriction with it, then if they get the proficiency another way, there is no question about how it would work.
Those classes do not have stupid restrictions you want to get rid of? Like wizards not being able to learn healing spells, what's up with that? Unfair, clerics can and they get armour too!
No, I don't find the fact that wizards can't heal to be a stupid restriction. They can do literally every other possible thing and have the majority of the most powerful spells in the game. They don't need any healing magic.
Yeah, I don't like your suggestions, as they either make druids metal armour wearers (if the restriction is removed) or makes everyone non-metal armour wearers (if non-metal equivalents of metal armours are readily and easily available.) Neither preserves the thematic niche of the druids.
I would prefer there to be some sort of metaphysical limitation if they wear metal, such as not being able to wildshape and perhaps even cast spells.
You could do that, but personally, I don't see "doesn't wear metal armor" as a thematic niche. Neither do rogues, monks, wizards or sorcerers, there isn't really a strong theme in druids not wearing it. It just shows a misunderstanding of what "natural" is to allow them to wearing chemically proccessed hides, but not shaped metal.
And for that reason I don't think it necessarily would be a problem if there was one druid subclass, that waived the metal limitation, if that made thematic sense for that subclass.
And I think there are already three or four that it makes sense for, so I want to wave it more broadly.
