D&D 5E (2014) Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, like you figured out mid-post, you don't send a paladin on a side quest to get gold to buy their plate. They are already getting gold from the adventure.

Are they? Always?

And maybe the druid will fight something they can make a half-plate equivalent too. Maybe not. It depends on the adventure. I can certainly imagine that an undead focused adventure is going to have far fewer big monsters covered in armor than a jungle romp.

And I can imagine a wilderness focused adventure where you fight a bunch of beasts that carry no gold.

Also, if the Druid isn't able to spend the gold they are getting on upgrades to their own equipment... is it even a reward for them? I tell a paladin "here is 500 gold" they can look at it and say "Hey, this can help me pay for that armor I want." The Druid? "Hey, here is 500 gold... wonder if I can find an animal to kill to get that armor I want."

Right. And the paladin might not have so much use for all the dead animal bits they come across.

I'm not saying it is an insurmountable problem, of course you can make sure that every druid in your game has the opportunity to fight and skin some big beast during the course of the campaign. Then hopefully find some way to get enchanted skinned beast armor when the paladin pulls out that Efreeti Chain or whatever they end up getting. But it is annoying that this opportunity is treated like... like it has no issues. There are issues with this route, extra burdens on the druid beyond what the other classes have to face, things the DM either ignores and hopes the Druid player doesn't notice, or that they have to figure out how to work into the game on top of everything else. So, I get annoyed when people put it forth like it just works and has no issues.

Once paladin gets efreeti chain, the druid should be getting a magical non-metal armour, so the issue is moot.

Also, if you stop thinking that druids are entitled to have unconditional medium armour usage, it is no burden at all. It is an possibility of getting something extra. Paladins do not have a possibility to go on quest to gain access to superheavy non-magical armour that is better than heavy armour they normally use.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sorry you had to sit through that. That sounds awful.

It was. I haven't been able to bring myself to even try the system again because of it, and I am never playing another "living campaign" at a Con ever again. It wasn't just that game that turned me off those though, I had about three or four of them during that con, and I really got annoyed at "here is a random NPC, he's important because you were supposed to have helped him three games that you never played ago"

If I were your Dungeon Master, our conversation about your character would go something like...

"I keep my head down and avoid confrontation" and "I just want to live a safe life" are a clear personality traits! Those definitely set him apart from every other character.

I think "the strong make the rules" and "tools are a path to power" are excellent insights gleaned from experience. Do either of them inform an ideal that compels him to fight for something he believes in?

What is the nature of his relationship with the druid and paladin? What bonds them together?

"I'm in debt to the mafia" is a clear flaw! That's easily something that can be exploited.

Well, to be honest, do to the nature of how the DM set things up, some of those are obvious.

The mafia debt was his way of getting us all on the first mission together. We all had to be smuggled into the city because we didn't have passports (my character fled his last city because someone blew up the weapons factory he worked at, and he was the only survivor and did not want to be arrested for something he would obviously be blamed for) so that was entirely the DM coming up with a reason to get us together.

The Druid and the Paladin are the other party members. We're a small three man group at the moment. So, we've definitely been trying to organically work out relationships. And I'm very aware and have told the group I'm very aware that I need to figure out a hook to get him to side with them when the time comes. Mostly it has been us working together because people are trying to kill us for the first session. Those two are VERY big and VERY strong, so he figures sticking with them is safest.

As for the ideal... that's tricky. I sometimes have characters who have single driving ideals, but I don't think this guy does yet. He is a poor kid who grew up in an evil empire, who made it by becoming an artificer and making weapons for the Empire. Then things blew up and now he's just trying to get back to a stable life where he isn't about to be killed. He can be ruthless, he can be practical, and I'm still figuring him out to a degree. Right now it seems like I'm just going to end up with a "I'm in too deep" moment and then see where that takes me.

Yeah, it's just a gentle nudge that reminds you of what you intend for your character.

It's easy to get caught up in the moment, or to be overwhelmed by a choice with high stakes. Having a compass is helpful in that regard, and that's all the personality characteristics are (a compass).

That I can agree with, and not even alignment. I once had a lady I was playing with who had a plan to break into a church and steal artifacts and then use those to figure out how to stop the big bad and she was on a roll with making this plan... And I interrupted and reminded her that she had made her character the daughter of a High Priestess of the same religion. It was a funny little "Oh yeah... I wouldn't do that, would I?" moment.

Totally could have done it, but they ended up with a less "conventional DnD" plan that involved a lot less grand larceny.

A compass is a good way to think of it. You don't have to follow it, but it does help remind you which way North is.

Did you have any thoughts about what I posted here?

It comes back to the idea that different druid's would have different religions. Not all of them worship animals. I could see Shepherd Druids who would be appalled by the idea of killing an animal and wearing its skin. I could see Spore Druids who don't really care about animals one way or the other.

Part of the issue is that I don't see the Druid as representing a single religion. Across a multiverse and a planet, I can see them representing many different aspects of natural worship and things similar to animism. There is a diversity here that makes it hard to have a single unified theory on them like this. I can see some druids taking that path though.

 

[Azuresun]

I'm reasonably certain that owlbears, griffons, and platypi are all just different phases in the lifecycle of one species.

A theory I really like is that owlbears are the distant descendants of cerotopsian dinosaurs, who changed to a carnivorous diet and developed feathers in the same way as some theropods.

 

[Faolyn]

I won’t sidetrack this discussion onto another issue, but suffice it to say, I disagree and I consider the cleric, warlock and paladin examples to be rules.

Well, I will sidetrack, so there.

But what I mean is, for clerics and warlocks, there's nothing in the PH as to what happens if they go against or deliberately forsake their god or patron. Mike Mearls says in Sage Advice that patrons can't take away their warlocks' power, but that's in a tweet, and therefore easy to miss. It's very easy to assume that a god strips away their cleric's divine abilities (that's what I would do), but again, it's not actually said. And there's no atonement spell this edition.

Paladins get the Oathbreaker and Redemption archetypes, but you can actually start out as one of them, if you wanted to, so they're a weird case anyway.

 

[J.Quondam]

A theory I really like is that owlbears are the distant descendants of cerotopsian dinosaurs, who changed to a carnivorous diet and developed feathers in the same way as some theropods.

Oh, I dig it! Maybe some variants might even sport a bony crest, or a mane of colorful plates and feathers that flares out when mating or fighting.
Sweeeeeeet!

 

[Remathilis]

That is an interesting question. Ft paladins we have Oathbreaker, but clerics and warlocks do not.

What happens if a warlock actively rejects their patron and works to counter them?

Technically, nothing. Even in the paladin's case.

If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

In the case of all classes, there is no mechanism to remove a character's class features other than DM fiat. A paladin can become Chaotic Evil, a druid wear plate, a warlock flip his patron off and a cleric take a leak on his deity's altar and under the rules there is nothing stopping them form keeping thier class features and spells OTHER than the DM.

Interestingly though, only the paladin suggests a course of action against a player who has violated thier ethos. The rest is left vague and up to the DM to determine.

So by the RAW, there is no penalty for any ethos violation in the class system. It's purely the DM's purview and those crying "muh agency" are essentially advocating to remove the DM from enforcing it.

CE death clerics of Tyr, coming to a table near you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For thematics of fantasy game it makes perfect sense. Of course everything is natural in a sense that is part of nature; uranium is natural so nukes are natural! But this is not what the theme means!

And the theme is stupid. Sorry, it is.

What makes taking a piece of metal, heating it up and beating it into shape different than taking a piece of metal, heating it up and beating it into shape? Nothing right?

So why can my druid wear a magical golden crown of power, but I can't pick up a plain iron shield? Both have mechanical impacts, both are made of metal, one is more "civilized" than the other? Can my druid read a book on Alchemy and gain proficiency with Alchemists tools, discovering the power of SCIENCE! ? Yep, no problem. Can I wear an antiquated bronze breastplate? No, too civilized. Can I use a gun if they exist in the world? Yep, perfectly fine.

It is completely incoherent, and makes no sense. And while you can choose to play a druid who rejects society, who rejects banking and and everything else... you can also play a druid who doesn't. Who instead embraces and tries to merge civilization and nature. And that's a good concept too.

I was trying to honestly engage wit your concerns. You keep talking about mechanical roles and comparing numbers to those of other classes, so it kinda seems that is important to you!

I recognize it as an issue, but you are the one who keeps bringing it up, even though I've listed my concerns and mechanical power isn't the top one.

Now, does that mean I want you make some sort of weird virtue test armor by making a metal armor with identical stats to leather? No. Because that is just dumb. Because letting a druid wear something that gives the AC of Breastplate or Half-Plate isn't a buff. It is expected for the class.

That Crawford says druids do no become overpowered if you give them better armour is not the same than it being expected. Also this is the guy who thought that twilight cleric was perfectly balanced thing to put in the game, so sorry if I take his opinion on this with a grain of salt!

Played with a Twilight Cleric. Guy was thinking about switching classes because he didn't feel like he was really contributing enough. They are good, but they aren't busted.

Then why you keep comparing their AC to that of other classes?

Because it is an issue. Third or Fourth on my list. But, I do know that there are many people who point to this armor restriction as a problem for druids. And, I can see the point. If my druid is supposed to be a frontliner, using spells like Shillelagh, Thorn Whip, Flame Blade, and others, then having a decent AC is useful. I've been playing a Druid, I am constantly on the frontline with the Barbarian. It is a legitimate concern.

It simply isn't my top or only concern. I can have multiple concerns.

Having them stick to what rules currently allow is not a nerf. Giving them more than they currently get like you want however is a buff. And as I've said many times, mechanically incentivising things that go against the theme of the class is terrible game design. It is the literal opposite of what class design should do.

No, no longer continuing to deny them their full use of their proficiency is not a buff. They were given medium armor. They can use medium armor. If you've got a huge issue with them using metal, which I think is a stupid restriction, the minimum you could do is make providing alternatives easier.

It really comes back down to a question I asked a while ago. If you really think that people don't care about this tradition to the point that as soon as it is removed, they would all invariably flock to breaking it... why do you think it is better to simply make the rules force them to follow that tradition? "Class Identity" is a nice thought, but I don't see how my character is less of a druid because I don't care about this stupid tradition. I still have many many other things that I do that make them a druid. And that is my choice.

But didn't you want to wear a starmetal armour?

Ha. Ha. I'm laughing. Ha.

But at some point it is better to just accept that concept really is not a druid any more and would be better represented by a cleric.

Except that you are wrong. Druids are more than clerics who don't wear metal armor. And if you think otherwise... why even bother caring about the druidic identity. That is so weak of an identity it doesn't even warrant talking about.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly
natural, and almost never benign."

I want to pop in here for a second.

Monstrosities is a TERRIBLE category. It covers naturally occuring creatures that just aren't naturally occuring in our real world. It covers people cursed into new forms. It covers magical experiments. Basically, if it isn't a a bog standard animal, and doesn't fit easily into a different category (or they want to deny things like charm person or wildshape) then they call it a monstrosity.

 

[abirdcall]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!


It was not my barkskin improvement, it was @ad_hoc's, I merely reiterated it because I know they have several people who are active in the thread blocked. But you're certainly correct about the issue with concentration.

My hesitation about removing concentration is the buff to moon druids who are already powerful.

They already have a ton of HP now we are going to give them 16 AC on top of that.

 

[Maxperson]

Or by nature. ‘Cause nature knows.

That's true. The DM can have nature be a consequence of putting on metal armor. Perhaps spirits of nature and animals are upset with the druid. Great idea.