D&D (2024) Druid metal armor restriction gone?

[Willie the Duck]

I think people have raised the biggest reasons why the non-metal armor restriction wasn't working well in D&D 2014 -- it wasn't well explained, clearly delineated as how it was supposed to work, used an otherwise-not-used-this-edition 'character won't' form of restriction, etc. Also a major issue (IMO) is that no two DMs had the same ideas on how easy it should be to acquire non-metal breastplates or half-plate or the like. That means any discussion related to how impactful this limit is has an inherent overwhelming variance upon it that plenty of people did not want.

I don't mind the metal restriction for druids. It has been a part of that character class for decades, and I feel it really contributes to the lore and overall vibe of the class. Without it, the druid loses a bit of its distinction between cleric and ranger. And let's be honest: there's not a whole lot of distinction to begin with. But I can understand where players might be coming from: the druid class suffers the most in regard to armor options. The restriction isn't explained well, the penalties are undefined, and the class is written such that it does need armor but all options for it are uninspiring (at best). Hide armor + shield is pretty much the upper-limit for druids, and that's...kinda mediocre, isn't it?

At the same time, Clerics used non-edged weapons by default for a long time (minus all the exceptions, of course), and the game changed this to clerics (by default) not getting to use the best weapons with little negative effect. If there was a blurring between clerics and paladins in 3e (CoDzilla taking over a paladin's schtick), it was because of the massive number of combat self-buff spells clerics got, not whether they could use longswords or not.

It's not clear to me exactly what the druid's non-metal armor rule was originally meant to be. Thematics is a prominent guess, but they still can use metal weapons*. Balance is another, although there's been so much change to go alongside it in terms of whether druids are more or less powerful than alternatives in each edition. Also confounding that is how much in each edition playing a often-attack-targeted druid meant changing into another shape instead of relying upon armor (and whether your armor matters when changed into another shape). *side note: using scimitars as the weapon of choice seems to have already dried up in 5e, but because of favoring Dex over Str, but also because Shillelagh (and Bear) are options.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that, while I don't in any way disagree with what you've said, I think the lore and overall vibe of the class has changed anyways, and I'm not sure whether keeping the non-metal armor bit would actually help that in any way, especially since the rest of the context of weapons and armor use has so radically changed.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Druids can use metal. They use metal weapons and tools all the time. Shields almost always have some sort of metal in their construction, even if it consists of rivets for handles. Metal already can be absorbed into wildshape, so that doesn't matter. Metal no longer messes with magic in any way, shape, or form. It's all based on training to overcome physical limitations. If you're trained in the armor, you can do all your stuff, including arcane spells. Additionally, rangers, who also use Primal magic, can use metal armor when casting.

I would assert that the armor limitation no longer serves the druid as a basic multiversal class concept. I can totally see a society of wilder folk, using medium metal armors and furs, with fighters, barbarians, rangers, and druids who fight alongside each other.

If you as a DM want to impose a metal armor limitation, it may only be a flavor restriction based on your campaign setting's lore, and druids in that setting likely get around it with magically-infused non-metal variations of heavier armor, if that's their thing.

 

[cranberry]

That is one sacred cow I can not tolerate being changed.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I miss losing features that give a class some identity... But, if that's what it takes to finally get rid of the damn scimitar proficiency, I am cool with it.

 

[MattW]

IMHO, the original options for the Druid were basically the armour and weapons that Gygax imagined to be available to a professional hunter in medieval Europe . Metal armour was not used because it's heavy, expensive, hard to maintain and makes "stalking" difficult. Weapons were optimised to be used on boar, deer or similar game animals.

The scimitar? Think of it as a large machete and it all starts to make sense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Praise the miners!

Leave the flavor restrictions to the table, not the text.

 

[Azzy]

The scimitar? Think of it as a large machete and it all starts to make sense.

In 1e AD&D, the scimitar stats also represented sickle-swords like the falcata (used by Iberian tribes, maybe introduced by the Celts), falx, and sica (both used by the Dacians).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

IMHO, the original options for the Druid were basically the armour and weapons that Gygax imagined to be available to a professional hunter in medieval Europe . Metal armour was not used because it's heavy, expensive, hard to maintain and makes "stalking" difficult. Weapons were optimised to be used on boar, deer or similar game animals.

The scimitar? Think of it as a large machete and it all starts to make sense.

Not exactly. Gygax didn’t create the Druid. Dennis Sustare created the Druid.

The original restrictions were in Eldritch Wizardry, and were a hippy-ish examination of Roman views of the Celts that were familiar on the 70s.

The reason for the scimitar is that originally under the looser OD&D rules, druids were allowed to use a “sickle or crescent shaped sword.” When AD&D codified the Druid and added more specific weapon types, this was changed to the scimitar.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

In 1e AD&D, the scimitar stats also represented sickle-swords like the falcata (used by Iberian tribes, maybe introduced by the Celts), falx, and sica (both used by the Dacians).

I honestly though the designers leaned into curved blades like sickles and scimitars because they resemble the crescent moon, which is a common druidic theme.

But sickles, hatchets, and machetes, those are all important wilderness tools. Druids absolutely will cut down vegetation if they have a valid purpose, whether for collecting herbs and plant samples for poultices, or collecting larger vegetation for building tools or shelter. They just have to honor and respect the lives of the things they cull, just like they do when hunting beasts for food and materials.

 

[mellored]

If anything, it should be stone weapons.

Possibly something like.

Druid Craft
Durring a long rest in a environment where a druid has access stone, bone, hide, wood, and other natural materials, he can make one weapon, armor, or shield. The DM has the final say if there is enough materials nearby.

These items work as normal for druids. Other creatures wielding these weapons have the die size or AC reduced by one and falls apart after a week without a druids attention. As such it has no value to a civilization.