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

[J.Quondam]

I don't think there's a single druid on this plane or any other that wouldn't choose metal armor over having to watch us further desecrate the bludgeoned remains of this long-dead horse.

Where do you think druids get their leather armor? They can't wear metal, so they gotta wear something!

 

[tetrasodium]

No they did not! You're simply trying to ignore the rules.


It certainly is due the look and feel, but if it was just cosmetics, it wouldn't need to be a rule. Then armours wouldn't mention material, or say something like "Metal or bone plates" and the druids not wearing metal would be in their class fluff.

I don't know why it is so damn hard for connect 1+1, you have two obvious elements provided: the class doesn't use items made of a thing and the items tell you whether they're made of the thing. It is blindingly obvious that these things have meant to interact!

I really can't be bothered with your bizarre strawmen any more. The rule is meant to cover a common a situation that comes across right at character creation every time that everyone makes a druid and even total noobs can easily understand it. They will never try to invent half-plates made of marshmallow to wear! Now you can continue to not believe in the rules, it ultimately is not my problem as I thankfully never need to play with you.

That is because your houserules only apply at your table. You've consistently tried to argue RAW, RAI, your houserules, all three, and neither as convenient as if it's all one thing.

 

[lingual]

The rules don't say anything about high density plastics.

 

[lingual]

That is because your houserules only apply at your table. You've consistently tried to argue RAW, RAI, your houserules, all three, and neither as convenient as if it's all one thing.

It's not "your" house rules. When a good chunk (half?) the players interpret it one way, it's way beyond "house rule". It's a common interpretation of a poorly written rule. The devs pretty much admit it as such. At least, this thread has convinced me of that. That my interpretation could very well be wrong.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's not "your" house rules. When a good chunk (half?) the players interpret it one way, it's way beyond "house rule". It's a common interpretation of a poorly written rule. The devs pretty much admit it as such. At least, this thread has convinced me of that. That my interpretation could very well be wrong.

Your coming in late, he's cited many personal houserules like a recent one about "tags", removing multiclass/racial/feat gained proficiencies, & so on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No they did not! You're simply trying to ignore the rules.


It certainly is due the look and feel, but if it was just cosmetics, it wouldn't need to be a rule. Then armours wouldn't mention material, or say something like "Metal or bone plates" and the druids not wearing metal would be in their class fluff.

I don't know why it is so damn hard for connect 1+1, you have two obvious elements provided: the class doesn't use items made of a thing and the items tell you whether they're made of the thing. It is blindingly obvious that these things have meant to interact!

I really can't be bothered with your bizarre strawmen any more. The rule is meant to cover a common a situation that comes across right at character creation every time that everyone makes a druid and even total noobs can easily understand it. They will never try to invent half-plates made of marshmallow to wear! Now you can continue to not believe in the rules, it ultimately is not my problem as I thankfully never need to play with you.

You know what else a complete and total noob will never talk about? Ironwood. You know why? Because they don't know that it existed for decades as an armor alternative for druids. You know who probably does know that ironwood was a thing? Jeremy Crawford. Have a feeling the guy might be familiar with the rules of 3.5 DnD. Just a guess.

But, you know what I have had complete noobs (because that is somehow our standard for what the designers expected, what a complete noob thinks) do? They've asked about taking insect carapace from giant insects to make armor. And I wonder, if you have a breastplate made out of insect chitin... would you give it the stats of padded armor? Maybe Platemail? Or... would you give it the stats of Breastplate?

Yes, I would think that if we could go back and rewrite things, and I had to live with this utterly innane no metal armor rule (again, no metal armor, they can still use metal items, you keep saying they don't use items made of metal and that is false) then I would have asked they include in the description of the armors that it was possible to make them out of other materials.

Because it is fluff. It is aesthetics. It is not a mechanical balance concern, as stated DIRECTLY by crawford. You want to nerf druids? Go right ahead man, I can't stop you, but stop acting like I'm some insane maniac just because I recognize the obvious solutions here. I'm not breaking any rules by making half-plate out of alternative materials. Hell, you yourself said they phrased it to allow for more non-metal medium armors. Half-Plate made out of chitin is a non-metal medium armor. It is literally the thing you said, you just can't stand the fact that it would use the same stats. Because I guess multiple creatures having exteriors as hard as steel in DnD makes it impossible for their hides to be as hard as steel.

 

[Deset Gled]

And now you are starting to see why many of us consider this a bad rule, why Undrave was saying that it seemed like it was written by a newbie game designer. Because they intentionally wrote a rule about cosmetics.

As someone coming into the conversation for the first time on page 112 (but I've been doing my best to check in occasionally)...

Why is this a problem? Why do you consider rules about cosmetics inherently "bad"? Lots of things are "cosmetic" in the rules. Most of the finer details about races, weapons, and spells are fluffy bits that are, fundamentally, cosmetic.

I say this as a person who actually doesn't like cosmetic rules very much. I prefer crunchy rules. Coming from 3e to 5e, a lot of my earliest complaints were that many of my preferred crunchy/hard rules in 3e were downgraded to cosmetics. And IMNSHO the entire "Personality in Background" chapter in the PHB is valuable rules real estate being wasted on cosmetics. But I'm fundamentally okay with rules that only effect cosmetics and nothing else; they're all over the game. I don't understand why cosmetic rules are acceptable in some places but are considered "bad" here.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's not "your" house rules. When a good chunk (half?) the players interpret it one way, it's way beyond "house rule". It's a common interpretation of a poorly written rule. The devs pretty much admit it as such. At least, this thread has convinced me of that. That my interpretation could very well be wrong.

It's not half. It's probably closer to 1%.

99.9% of players don't post on message boards.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
A hundred twelve pages of the same argument?

Enough, folks. Thread closed.