D&D 5E Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[mrpopstar]

I get that. Not everyone can be vegan again people are not lesser because of it.

You seem to insist that having to eat whatever you're given at the food pantry somehow makes you not a vegan. That's a harmful stance because the choice becomes a decision between starvation and veganism.

You've been successful in your activism! That is commendable and captures eyes, which in turn shoulders you with some responsibility as your words carry the weight of some authority.

For example, I think championing human rights is a noble thing as well but we all have our own limitations to how much we can contribute.

I've been vegan for 17 years. If I tried to eat meat I would vomit.

Eww. LOL

I don't know a single vegan who would consider a meat eater to be vegan. You are the first person I've come across making this argument (except for the rules lawyer arguments in this thread).

Not one of me vegan friends would think someone was lesser for eating meat though.

I feel like you are putting that meaning into the word.

I'm not adding a value judgement, I'm challenging harmful absolutism.

When I go out for dinner and I say I'm vegan I mean it and it is important for that word to mean that I will not eat meat. Full stop.

I mean, of course, I would hope that you're able to say "I'm vegan" and the chef will know not to use bacon grease. I'm wholly supporting you on that.

It's this: I was a competitive gymnast and danced professionally for ten years after high school, that life experience has left me very sensitive to absolutist conversations about food because I've witnessed A LOT with regard to restrictive diets and what happens when we start telling other people what they are and are not.

Hah. Most important takeaway: You can safely come to my house for dinner!

No, it’s a mobile app for various forums and such, including ENWorld.

Ah.

Why would metal chain function any differently than non-metal chain? It's chain. You wear it and it moves around your body like chain does, regardless of material. If it did behave differently based on material, you'd need proficiency for steel chain, separate proficiency for adamantine chain, and a third one for mithril chain, and so on. Materials don't alter how the proficiency works. If you have it for one material, you have it for all of them regardless of experience.

True.

 

[Maxperson]

Whilst I agree that Sage Advice kinda support page 45 being in error, I don't think anything prevents existence of partial proficiencies. There are martial and simple weapon proficiencies, sometimes separated to ranged and melee but there are also proficiencies for individual weapons. Also blade pact warlocks are proficient with their pact weapon, but not automatically with an exactly identical weapon that's not their pact weapon. And if rules said that you're proficient with all non-metal armours or even proficient with all weapons that have pink ribbons on them* then that would technically work just fine. The issue just is that pages 45 and 65 say different things.

(* They should provide a price for purchasing pink ribbons though.)

I had forgotten the abilities like elves being proficient in longsword. So there is precedent for partial proficiency, but the druids for other reasons aren't doing that. So far as I know, all the partial proficiencies are with weapons, because even a longsword and short sword work differently.

Not so with chain mail(metal) and chain mail(non-metal). Both of those work the same. Further, if they had wanted to exclude armors of a type that has metal, they would just have said druids are proficient with hide armor.

 

[abirdcall]

You seem to insist that having to eat whatever you're given at the food pantry somehow makes you not a vegan.

It seems like we might be using different definitions.

I would use 'animal activist' where you are using 'vegan'. I wouldn't even use 'animal activist' to describe myself, I'm just living my best life and veganism is part of that for me. I'm more passionate about dismantling capitalism but that's a whole other thing.

I think I get what you're saying and you're right that we've gotten off topic.

I'll just say that anyone who cares about animals in whatever way they can would be welcome and embraced by me and my vegan friends.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It doesn’t violate player agency because it doesn’t say the character won’t do something they have the ability to do.

The thing, is when we come to phobias or indeed even deeply ingrained taboos, the distinction between willingness and ability becomes rather blurred. Can a person suffering from severe arachnophobia pet a tarantula? Physically they can, but they most definitely won't! Is this couldn't or wouldn't? I don't know.

Neat idea. Not what the rules say.

Rules are silent on why. So it might as well be that.

It is an issue with this one thing because this is the one case where a rule dictates thar the player isn’t able to decide their character will do a thing they have the ability to do.

Except according to you there is a rule for it, and that rule is “they won’t.” If you allow the character to equip metal armor and stop being a druid, you are creating a house rule to preserve agency that the rule as written would otherwise remove.

But you won’t choose to equip metal armor as a druid. Not can’t, won’t. The rule, if you interpret it as such, defines what the player is allowed to decide the character does.

You know what. You're technically correct. My point was that when we are approaching a situation where the player would want to change their character concept, we must step outside the rules anyway.

This has nothing to do with player agency in D&D and I’m not going to engage with it any further.

What I was trying to get at, was that the player agency is in practice limited by the social contact to play certain sort of game with certain sort of characters. Sorry if I tried to get it across in confusing manner. (Which I did.)

 

[Maxperson]

The thing, is when we come to phobias or indeed even deeply ingrained taboos, the distinction between willingness and ability becomes rather blurred. Can a person suffering from severe arachnophobia pet a tarantula? Physically they can, but they most definitely won't! Is this couldn't or wouldn't? I don't know.

Nobody has a taboo that they cannot willingly break. If a taboo gets to that point it has progressed beyond taboo and into mental illness. And while severe arachnophobia probably(it's not guaranteed) prevents someone from touching a tarantula, lesser phobias do not prevent the same way. I have minor arachnophobia and could pet one if I wanted to. I just normally choose not to. If someone offered me $1000, I'd do it for sure. The druid's taboo doesn't even rise to the level of a minor phobia.

You know what. You're technically correct. My point was that when we are approaching a situation where the player would want to change their character concept, we must step outside the rules anyway.

Putting on metal armor as an exception does not change the character/class concept, though.

 

[mrpopstar]

Right, but no one can tell me what my character's personality characteristics are, correct? They are what I say they are. And yet, the Druid doesn't get the capability to make their own choices in their own beliefs... why? Because people like the rule and think it would look weird if a druid did something different?

To be clear: I'm referring to the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws outlined in the chapter covering personalities and backgrounds.

It's true that you're able to choose, but the choices made offer prescriptions on the way we might expect your character will or won't behave.

You're instructed to work with the Dungeon Master if you want to create an ideal, bond, or flaw not found on any of the lists--which is not unlike having to engage with the DM to hash out the consequences of a druid wearing metal armor.

Sure. And if the other person left it at just saying that, then they would be fine. If they tried to mechanically force the rogue to sneak attack at every opportunity, no matter the circumstances, because Rogue's using sneak attack is their vision for how the class should function... then we would have a problem with player agency, correct?

It's the game's vision for how the class should function, and it's not unreasonable for other players to have expectations that align with the game's vision, but I agree that we shouldn't be strong-arming others to bend to our will (which is the crux of the player agency discussion).

It seems like we might be using different definitions.

I would use 'animal activist' where you are using 'vegan'. I wouldn't even use 'animal activist' to describe myself, I'm just living my best life and veganism is part of that for me. I'm more passionate about dismantling capitalism but that's a whole other thing.

I think I get what you're saying and you're right that we've gotten off topic.

I'll just say that anyone who cares about animals in whatever way they can would be welcome and embraced by me and my vegan friends.

Happy to have encountered you in the world!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe it is that line I said about Druids having a lot of incentives to be frontliners. Then I went and talked about two frontliners. I get skimming posts to get through this faster, but could you at least slow down wehn responding to someone directly?

I read it, it just didn't make much sense. More incentive to be frontlines than who? Rogues? Most characters who go into melee do not have AC of fighters and paladins. And of course as shapeshifting full casters druids have a lot of options to do stuff at range or move where they need to be.

And a fighter, or cleric, or heck a wizard can improve their AC via magic armor. Elven Chain doesn't need proficiency to wear. And they can all bumpy Dex too. That still doesn't make an 16 AC decent for a mid to high level character. And considering magical AC bumps are very closely monitored because of bladesingers and Forge clerics and Paladins, it seems pertinent to recognize that at least letting a druid match non-magical armors without magical AC shoudn't be that hard.

Whose non-magical AC they need to match? Why they don't have any magic items?

In a section all about homebrewing magical items.

No it's not! Homebrewing is making your own stuff, not assigning traits from an existing chart to existing items. Also what's wrong with dragonscale? I'd imagine there would be plenty of options to get materials for it in Dungeons & Dragons!

Or you could let people have different tastes than you without forcing them to argue about it and take virtue tests to prove they aren't a nasty nasty powergamer, instead of nerfing a character class that in no way deserves a nerf.

It's not a nerf, it's what the rules say. What you want is a buff.

No, it is not.

1) Metal is natural, calling it unnatural makes no sense.
2) Worked Metal is no more a sign of civilization than chemically treated leathers or lacquered wood or paper or glass. Heck, one of the earliest signs of civilization are things like writing, fire and language. Druids are fine with those.
3) The druid has no restriction on any form of metal except the one has a mechanical defensive impact. Using metal weapons is 100% fine.
4) The "encased in metal" argument doesn't make sense, because shields aren't encasing you.

And on and on and on.

The rule still doesn't represent the whole of the druidic beliefs, it merely deals with the mechanically pertinent part.

Rogues get the ability to hide or dash as a bonus action (avoiding the fight), disengage to avoid taking hits and get a reaction to take half damage when hit anyways. Also, as a Dex primary class, they are very likely to get a 17 AC before magical gear.

Monks have unarmored defense, a bonus action dodge, increased speed to get out of fights and the ability to cancel ranged attacks.

Warlocks, Sorcerers and Wizards all have magical spells to increase their AC, a few have specific subclasses that either increase their HP or their AC, teleportation spells to get out of fights, and especially in the case of Warlocks, taking the feat to get medium armor is incredibly valuable to them. An option you would deny druids.

Only two druids get any sort of mitigation to their low AC. Which is quite low. If a druid doesn't make Dex at least their 3rd highest ability, they are looking at a maximum AC of 14... something that a wizard, sorcerer and warlock can all beat trivially. And this doesn't get into any other issues, such as the druid having a strong incentive to be in melee, since most of their ranged options are limited after they cast a single concentration spell.

Druids have barkskin, so they can get at least 16 if they need to. That being said, barkskin should be better. It is an iconic spell, so it disappointing that there usually is no reason to use it all as AC 16 is not super hard to get anyway. If druids truly need more defence, then buffing barkskin is where I would look. Not copying clerics, but doing things in uniquely druidic way.

And yet the class should be flexible enough to cover multiple archetypes.

Ultimately some things are central to the archetype. And keeping druid and cleric district is important, and yes, wearing different kind of armours is part of that. Making them even more similar to each other ultimately diminishes the reason fort having druid in the first place. Just make a cleric who can wildshape as a channel divinity.

 

[abirdcall]

Druids have barkskin, so they can get at least 16 if they need to. That being said, barkskin should be better. It is an iconic spell, so it disappointing that there usually is no reason to use it all as AC 16 is not super hard to get anyway. If druids truly need more defence, then buffing barkskin is where I would look. Not copying clerics, but doing things in uniquely druidic way.

Just be careful not to make it too powerful for Moon Druids.

Going from AC 11 to AC 16 in their bear form is pretty big.

Right now it would be a no-brainer if it weren't for the Concentration.

If I were to buff it I think something simple and thematic like allowing it to work with shields would be good.

Make it act like heavy armour the character is proficient in that sets their AC to 16 so they don't get their Dex bonus and then they can also use a shield.

 

[Maxperson]

To be clear: I'm referring to the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws outlined in the chapter covering personalities and backgrounds.

It's true that you're able to choose, but the choices made offer prescriptions on the way we might expect your character will or won't behave.

You're instructed to work with the Dungeon Master if you want to create an ideal, bond, or flaw not found on any of the lists--which is not unlike having to engage with the DM to hash out the consequences of a druid wearing metal armor.

You aren't really bound to those, either, though. They are very similar to the druid's situation. The traits, ideals, bonds and flaws are a strong part of your character's personal story, but you can buck the trend if you want to.

Take the Acolyte ideal of "The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld." That's pretty strong language. MUST be upheld. Now the Acolyte come across an old civilization with ancient traditions of child sacrifice to evil gods. The acolyte is not bound to try and preserve and/or uphold that sort of heinous practice. Exceptions can be made at the choice of the PC(player).

The personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws system is not proscriptive, but it does strongly inform the player on how to roleplay the PC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just be careful not to make it too powerful for Moon Druids.

Going from AC 11 to AC 16 in their bear form is pretty big.

Right now it would be a no-brainer if it weren't for the Concentration.

If I were to buff it I think something simple and thematic like allowing it to work with shields would be good.

Make it act like heavy armour the character is proficient in that sets their AC to 16 so they don't get their Dex bonus and then they can also use a shield.

Yeah, good point about moon druids.

So what do people think of this? Barkskin can be stacked with shield, otherwise unchanged? AC18 good enough for you @Chaosmancer? Is this worth the spell slot? Is it too good? Any alternate ideas for buffing the spell?