It is fine for a first level character, but even a low level wizard as the ability to break up beyond that. And Druids have many incentives to be a frontliner. No fighter or Paladin is sitting at 16 AC by levels 5 thru 8 and thinking that they are in a good place with their AC.
Why are you comparing a full caster to fighter or paladin? And of course they can improve their AC via magic armour or bumping dex.
And yes, like I said, it can be homebrewed into magical items. Just like any item could give you +2 Initiative or advantage on swimming checks. But obviously not all magical items give you those properties out of the gate, and you need to homebrew the item to do so.
It's not homebrewing, it is directly in the DMG rules.
They are generally considered a bit stronger. And we are comparing druids to clerics because they are the most similiar. And while I have done extensive homebrewing on rangers and monks, this is an issue that not only annoys me on a conceptual level, but it is also incredibly easy to fix. Unlike the extensive reworkings needed for the other classes.
Perhaps we should nerf clerics instead? I never understood why they need to have the amount the armour they have. Paladin already fulfils the role of a plate-wearing holy warrior.
It isn't that strange of a hill. I'm not arguing physics or the existence of magic, I'm arguing internal logic of a belief system. I don't need physics for that.
Th logic is fine. The rule is not comprehensive tratise of entire druid belief system, it merely deals with a common and pertinent aspect of it.
And we've covered those... four classes? Five. And in all of those five cases except one, if the player takes a race or feat that grants medium armor proficiency, they can wear it. And the one that "can't" is the monk, who has abilities specifically designed for being unarmored.
Right. So those classes have harder time getting good AC, as they need to spend resources such as feats to achieve it. Just like druids need to spend resources such as magic items to achieve it. Seems fair to me.
Why do your aesthetics trump everyone elses?
Not just mine. The majority here seemed to agree with some form of metal restiction on druids, even though they don't like how the rule is implemented. And I would guess that is the prevailing opinion of the playerbase.
If you give it the stats of Hide Armor (12+dex [max 2]) then you would be nerfing it. Since a Giant Croc has an AC of 14 and a dex of -1, its caluculation is likely that of Half-Plate (15+Dex [max 2])
I really don't think you can extrapolate armour materials from monster stats like that. The monsters are designed to work as CR appropriate foes, not as reagents of crafting simulation.
Then I would fine with that compromise
Again, I don't find that arbitrary. Also, as I noted later, I had forgotten about the healing spells that wizards do have. Life Transference, dispel magic, remove curse, wish. Some wizards can raise the dead, and if they take a feat like Artificer Initiate (a few others if the DM allows the superior phrasing from the Tasha Feats to allow upcasting) they can get cure wounds.
So, actually, this "sacred cow" doesn't even exist in the game.
Certainly the cow is there. Wizards generalloy do not get healing spells. There might be some minor exceptions,but overall theme is there. Wizard is not the party healer. And yes, it is an arbitrary thing based on D&D history, and a reason why a lot of people like it.
So, we should just ignore that Dream Druids, Land Druids, Star Druids, and Wildfire druids all make sense to include metal armor? Just because you personally think that only one druid subclass should be allowed to, to maintain your preferred aesthetic?
I don't agree that those subclasses particularly require waiving the armour restriction.
Should we remove armor and shield proficiencies from Barbarians just because some people prefer using two-handed weapons and going without armor? It is an aesthetic choice, not something that we need to enforce with the rules.
No, becuae the class is actually built so that not wearing armour is still a valid choice and wearing some armour doesn't violate the themes of the class in the first place.
A theme that makes no sense, strains credibility and appears entirely kept just because people think that those who worship nature should be wild men dressed in animals skins with horns on their heads. Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that being removed.
Ok. I like that theme and so do many others.
So, solution #2 works for you, great.
Which is like I said earlier, you are against it because you see it as powergaming. Everyone will abandon metal armor and choose to wear non-metal armor. You seem to think that no one is capable of doing anything except picking the mechanically superior choice, and therefore if you want themes, you need to enforce them mechanically. Which, is a problem, because that necessitates that you must enforce a single vision for themes, even if those themes are not what the players want or care about.
Which is part of what led to 3.5's class bloat. You wanted a wizard who specialized in summoning a stronger familiar? You had to make an entirely new class. What a ranger who used a two-handed axe? Entirely new class. And on and on.
As for why people bother making metal armors? Maybe they last longer and are easier to repair. Maybe it is because you don't have to go kill a dangerous monster to make them. We can easily figure that out.
That could be decent, but I just don't understand why you are so hyper-focused on trying to enforce a specific status-quo through mechanical power. It just seems so utterly pointless. Let people decide if they care about your themes or not. Stop trying to force people to submit to your vision of the proper theme for their class.
This is how good game design works, especially in a class based game. Classes are thematic archetypes and the rules need to support and encourage playing that archetype. If you're not gonna do that, then it is just better to get rid of the classes altogether.
