Why? Why everything must work the same? Because, guess what, in a class based game it doesn't! Some classes need to choose very limited amount of spells they know, some classes just automatically know all spells for their class on spell levels they have, some classes can buy more spells with money. Because wizards can buy spells, should bards be able too? Or should all classes just know all the spells because druids and clerics do?
Should a Barbarian have to fight and kill the chieftain of their tribe to reach level 11? It would make for a good story, but would that be a fair requirement? Classes are different, so why shouldn't we force every single barbarian into the same story? Maybe Paladins need to spend a year on sabbatical, serving their local temple before they are given their Divine Health feature. Classes are different right? So it would be completely fair to deny a paladin a class feature if they can't devote a full year to serving their church.
I'm not talking about class features though. I'm not talking about spells. I'm talking about gear. So maybe Rogues are only allowed to use what they steal. Or maybe a fighter has to kill someone and taken their gear to use it. That would be fair right? Because classes are different?
Or is that just an excuse? Because, oddly enough, there is only a single class that seems to require a special quest to get their mundane gear that they are proficient in.
So how many sets of armour one druid needs?
Are you saying you would allow a druid to have half-plate by level 3? In that case at least two. My paladin I spoke about earlier had three... yeah, most of my characters have had about three sets of armor.
But could it perhaps be possible, that in typical course of adventuring the characters come across enemies that have gold and enemies that can be harvested for parts? So everyone can get what they need?
Sure, it is possible. It is also possible a DM could just let a druid buy non-metal armor so that they don't need to make sure that the proper enemies are put against the Druid.
Great. So why can't we just even the playing field when it comes to getting gear. You wouldn't stop a paladin from hunting and making non-metal armor. So, who cares if they can just buy it?
That. Or you know, just any magical armour with the appropriate quality from the chart right in the DMG.
I think I talked about that. Like, specifically. Like when I said this that you had to specifically delete "I guess you could give them +2 crystal half-plate that conveys lightning resistance... but that's a homebrew item. And even then, you'd have to be pretty careful, because someone else might take that item instead."
So, thanks for telling me what I already know and talked about.
It doesn't exist. That's the point. Druids are effectively light armour wearers that have a rule that lets them use some medium armours. Paladins do not have rule that allows them provisionally use armours a tier better than normal.
No, they can use medium armor, some people just don't allow them to use metal and then make them jump through hoops to use medium armor made out of something else. A thing that they can completely do. I'm not making up something new like "superheavy armor" I'm talking about bog-standard medium armor, not made out of metal so you can keep your precious aesthetic.
That isn't a new rule. That isn't a new type of armor. So why are you acting like it is?
And the limitation was not a typo either. They do not have unconditional access to medium armour.
Fine, if you want to be that way, then give them easier access to the medium armor you do approve of. It breaks no rules, it breaks no balance. It is perfectly fine in every way except that you don't like it.
Guns do not normally exist in the game. No one is even proficient with them. It is up to GM to decide how to implement them if they want to. But this is just the similar sort of strawman than your metal staves or whatever it was earlier. Point out that the rules do not deal with an uncommon thing that usually doesn't come up and conclude based on that they shouldn't deal with an incredibly common thing that is certain to come up in every game either.
It isn't a strawman, because you never made the argument that I am talking about. All I was pointing out is that you have an equal amount of support for druids not using guns as a different DM would have for them using guns. And, even if, even if they weren't given proficiency... they can still choose to pick them up and use them. They just won't be proficient.
But, if a Druid tried to pick up a metal shield, you would cite the rules telling them that their character would choose not to take that action. And if they asked why, you might point to the idea that metal shields represent too much civilization... where no such restriction exists for literally any other form of civilization. Maybe guns are incredibly uncommon. Are swords? Are swords any less of a sign of civilization, a tool whose sole purpose is killing other humans, and only used in warfare which only really exists in the terms of civilization? And yet, druids can choose to pick up a sword.
Actually, do you now why a druid can even use a scimitar?
This was part of Gygax's reasoning. Because they are like sickles. And why did they use sickles? Because of a poorly researched a-historical paper that connected Druids to crescent-shaped tools. Specifically Golden Sickles.
Actually, since I'm on a bit about ahistorical sources used to make Druids, you know what makes me the most utterly baffled by this whole "anti-civilization" angle? Real druids, which I know we are talking about DnD, but real druids. Our best evidence has them as sages, historians, Judges, doctors... they were not just holy people but the source of things like laws, medicine and the oral history. You know, Civilization.
So a druid who doesn't reject civilization should be... a perfectly valid concept.
Furthermore, the class based game that relies on archetypes must actually commit to the themes of the class. If the idea is just 'do whatever' then it is better to make a classless game to begin with so that the players can truly build whatever sort of characters they want. And D&D classes are so full of (sometimes weirdly) specific things that is strange to get hung up on this one.
And the only one you've put forth is "wizards can't heal" which turned out to be wrong.
But, let's dig into this idea of the "archetype" a little bit. Do all rogues need to be thieves? Do all rogues need to even be greedy? What exactly is the single defining archetype and theme that combines all rogues into a single cohesive unit? Or, would it be more accurate to think that the class has multiple different themes and archetypes loosely bundled together?
Heck, even a class that seems like it is a single unit really isn't. The Paladin has a lot of themes in it. Multiple different ways to approach it.
It doesn't need to be gamae breaking to be blatantly unbalanced. It is clearly far more powerful than most other options. In any case, pointless to continue this here, there is a whole separate thread for the twilight cleric issue.
You are the one trying to compare a druid with an AC of 19 to the Twilight Cleric.
They have access to some medium armour. You want give them access to more gear than they currently have and the kind that is more powerful than most of the stuff they've access to. That's a buff.
No. They have access to all medium armor. They choose (if the DM decided to mind control them) to only use non-metal medium armor. Giving them access to non-metal medium armor that they are supposed to be proficient in anyways isn't a buff.
Do you think making wooden shields available is buffing the Druid? It is the same restriction, in the same place, do you think we've unfairly buffed the druid by allowing them to use wooden shields? If not, what makes giving the bone half-plate suddenly a buff?
Because there is actually a trade off? Because you just can't get the best of both worlds?
Why does it need to be a trade-off? Metal shields aren't a trade-off from wooden shields aren't a trade-off from turtle shell shields. They are all shields, they all give +2 AC. You can have "the best of both worlds" with a wooden shield, but it is unacceptable to have it with bone half-plate? Why?
Why is one okay and the other an unfair buff that unbalances the game?
That's just your class half empty thinking. The rule is just easy way to write a light armour class with an awesome extra option to use some thematically appropriate medium armours.
So, if I pretend they wrote the class differently to not include the proficiency they have, then I can see them as being better than you allow them to be?
How about this, if they wanted it to be light armor and hide... that's what they would have written. They didn't, because they wanted Druids to use medium armor. Pretty simple.
It definitely is part of their theme. I obviously don't agree with it being stupid. This is like the halfling thread.
Except here your best defense seems to be "but they only wrote the part that has a mechanical impact on defense, and you are just supposed to guess the rest" and this is a rule that, if followed strictly, completely violates player agency.
