Those do not seem terribly well considered houserules to me, but if you like them go for it!
So, you think it would be fair for the DM to artificially enforce character tropes on their players? You would have no problems with any of those? You say they don't seem "well considered" but each of these is a different class. That was the standard you were using, so what's wrong with them?
So what. Only single class can buy more spells with money.
In theory, but there are a few questions that can easily come up. Like, if they are purchasing scrolls to use, anyone can buy scrolls right? Is buying more spells and more spell slots (effectively) that different?
Ritual Caster feat gives you a ritual book, this can apply to rituals for bards, clerics and druids. So... can a Druid simply make a ritual book? Logically it makes some sense that they could.
Finally... many many many many DMs do not allow wizards to buy new spells. It is a treasure option to allow them to expand their portfolio, not a restriction on them that prevents them from doing something else.
So you don't think you will fight tree enemies that provide armour materials over the entire campaign?
But ultimately this whole buying/hunting thing isn't a big deal. If you want make things buyable go ahead. You can make magic items buyable too if you want. These sort of things just makes gear acquisition more boring in my book.
More boring? It is "boring" for everyone else. I don't mind if it is boring for you, I mind how it affects the players.
Also, what enemy do you think that you will fight that will give you the equivalent of saaaay, +2 Half-Plate with a Death Ward effect? I mean, you are allowing the druid to have magical armor right? And, like, some of the magical armors for most literally everyone else are pretty strong. Effreeti Chain is effectively +1 Platemail with fire immunity and the ability to walk on lava. That's some potent stuff.
Or do you imagine a Druid is also capable of enchanting their own armor without having to go on ANOTHER quest to get "special reagents". Cause most players just loot magic armor from the enemies, but that will mostly be metal armor you will refuse to let the Druid use, right?
And to make it clear, the "three armors" I was thinking of are usually "Starting Armor, Mundane Upgrade, Magic Armor"
Sure. And the barbarian could take the holy Avenger instead of giving it to the paladin.
Right. And unlike something like the Holy Avenger that has special abilities that only unlock if you are a paladin, armor made out of crystal is equally effective for all people who wear it. Unless you only give out metal armors, and make sure everyone knows that the druid can't wear them, so that everyone knows when they find a non-metal armor it is specifically placed for the druid to take.
By 'some people' you mean the rules.
No, I mean some people. That's why I said "some people"
The rule is that they don't use metal armour. The non-metallic medium, armours in the rules are hide, dragonscale armour and possible other magical medium armours with 'strange material' trait. That is what they are intended to wear according RAW. Crawford says this: "A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it." That's the design intent.
Giving them anything more is extra. And sure, it is not gonna break the game, but it is not something you're automatically entitled to and no unfairness is being done if you don't get optional homebrewed extra buffs.
So, why not just make dragon scale say "Druids are proficient in this armor" and give them Light and hide? If the intention was that Druid's shouldn't be allowed to wear half plate, why are they explicitly able to wear half-plate?
Because Crawford was very straight on that point. They can wear it. The absolutley have the proficiency to wear half-plate. And, since this is a legacy rule from older editions I find it perfectly valid to point out that half-plate made of insect chitin, bone, ironwood, and dozens of other "metal alternatives" has been in the rules for decades. This is not a new rule. This at a minimum could be seen as the designers dropping the ball.
But in no way is it a buff.
Sure. That's why I said 'I wouldn't let them use guns.'
D&D druid is not historical druid, it is it's own archetype. One which you don't get. This is like the halfling thread where you simply don't get a thematic trope try to 'prove' it is bad trope by dissecting trivialities. Please stop, I don't care.
"I don't care, my thematic tropes are better than yours" isn't a great position to take. See, if anyone could actually give me something that made sense beyond "I don't like it" I could see an argument being built for Druids not using metal armor.
I actually really liked the idea of the Druid gaining more power from animal hides and getting greater protection from them. I am actually thinking of writing that into the Shepherd Druid, because that is such a fun idea. I'd agree that the theme was coherent if it said that primal magic is disrupted by being encased in metal except 1) That doesn't account for shields at all and 2) That doesn't explain Rangers, who have often been said to use druidic magic and have no such restriction, ever, in their entire history.
Also, I love how quoting Gygax on why he included certain tropes and themes is now a triviality.
So how well you think a wizard as the party's healer would work?
Considering I've been in a game for two or three years now where our primary healer is a Rogue... pretty well actually. Lots of things that wizard could do that my rogue can't.
And so do druids. But this is like wanting to monks wear armour and use great axes. I'd also note that the classes derived from original four classes (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Cleric) tend to be conceptually broader than ones that diverged from them later.
Monks absolutely can use Greataxes. Quite effectively too. Armor is a bit harder, I think you lose too much from the monk by having them wear armor but A) You still can choose to do that and B) Monks are specifically designed with features to take advantage of being unarmored, druids are not.
No I'm not. I merely cited that as reason why I may not completely trust Crawford's assessments on balance.
And I merely offered a counter-opinion, since you went straight to something you considered heavily broken to counteract the idea of a druid being allowed to have half-plate armor they are proficient in.
As I noted already earlier this simply isn't true. RAW they have access to hide, dragonscale and magical armours with strange material quirk. That's it. Anything more is a buff.
Then why was it written the way it was written? Why not simply Light armors and Hide and given Dragonscale a note about Druid's being proficient in it? Why have this set up so that Druid's can absolutely use half-plate, if using half-plate is an unintended buff to the class and should be avoided?
Wooden shields already exist and druids can already use them. So obviously it is not a buff.
So, half-plate made out of bone is a buff, because they never explicitly made it. Meanwhile, earlier, when I said that these things weren't really included, you said that they were because of the Strange Material Quirk.
So, you are arguing both sides. It isn't included so it is a buff, but it isn't a penalty because they are included. Which way you want to go? You can't be going in both directions at the same time.
Heat metal is far more powerful against armour, as you cant just drop it.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, it is so powerful that most DMs refuse to use it against PCs, because even a half a second of tactics is enough to turn that spell into a death sentence against anyone wearing armor.
But sure, if you want a world where primary armour material is bone, go for it. It sounds certainly cool, it just isn't what most D&D setting traditionally are, nor it is even remotely realistic but then again its D&D.
So, it can only be sold if it is the primary material? Weird. See, the primary material for making plates IRL is ceramic. But I can also find ones made of paper, out of plastic, out of metal.
So, why can't we have easily accessible bone armor and metal armor? Why does it have to be one or the other?
No. That is what they effectively wrote. That is what the end result of the words on the paper is.
Then why not write it that way? I don't care what you think the "effective end result" has been, I'm asking why they didn't just write it more clearly. If druids getting half-plate is an unintended buff, by do they have proficiency in it?
Because then druids could not have worn dragonscale and other potential magical armours made of dead creatures and they would have had to list every such item individually. They just wrote it in manner that doesn't take a lot of space.
Trivially simple to add "druids are proficient with this armor" to Dragonscale. And there are no other magical armors made of dead creatures. Seven years into the game, and not one. So, that argument makes no sense unless you think there was a bunch of armors that were planned and never released.
How has it taken 98 pages for anyone to point this out? Problem solved, thread over, right?
