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

[Horwath]

They has a bunch of feedback about being more "moon" based, rather than elemental. So they tried out moonbeam.

We will see if it sticks or not.

As you showed, defenses is fairly balanced now.

To balanced offense, just have a 'spend a spell slot to deal more damage' in some form. (Would be OP if they got to match a Barbarian without expending slots).

So if not moonbeam, then something like elemental weapon, primal smite, haste, or higher CR creature.

Part of the problem is that 1/3 CR falls further behind as you go up.

I.e.
at level 6, your CR is 4 levels lower.
at level 15, your CR is 10 levels lower.

Maybe something like CR 1/3 your level + the spell slot level you expended.

I.e. at level 15, you have CR 5, and expend a 5rd level slot = CR 10

maybe just CR should be 1/2 level?

 

[Clint_L]

They has a bunch of feedback about being more "moon" based, rather than elemental. So they tried out moonbeam.

We will see if it sticks or not.

As you showed, defenses is fairly balanced now.

To balanced offense, just have a 'spend a spell slot to deal more damage' in some form. (Would be OP if they got to match a Barbarian without expending slots).

So if not moonbeam, then something like elemental weapon, primal smite, haste, or higher CR creature.

Part of the problem is that 1/3 CR falls further behind as you go up.

I.e.
at level 6, your CR is 4 levels lower.
at level 15, your CR is 10 levels lower.

Maybe something like CR 1/3 your level + the spell slot level you expended.

I.e. at level 15, you have CR 5, and expend a 5rd level slot = CR 10

I like this idea. It is hampered by the fact that there aren't enough beasts - they max out at CR 8 (T-rex). But if beast-like monstrosities was included, it could work, though the list is still pretty limited.

 

[Charlaquin]

I like this idea. It is hampered by the fact that there aren't enough beasts - they max out at CR 8 (T-rex). But if beast-like monstrosities was included, it could work, though the list is still pretty limited.

I do wonder if we might see some of those “beast-like monstrosities” become beasts in the new monster manual.

I wish they’d bring back monster subtypes and supertypes. Instead of “monstrosity” being a type on its own, you could have “monstrous” be a supertype. Then you could have monstrous beasts, monstrous humanoids, monstrous elementals, monstrous fey, etc.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I do wonder if we might see some of those “beast-like monstrosities” become beasts in the new monster manual.

I wish they’d bring back monster subtypes and supertypes. Instead of “monstrosity” being a type on its own, you could have “monstrous” be a supertype. Then you could have monstrous beasts, monstrous humanoids, monstrous elementals, monstrous fey, etc.

I really feel that BG3 is going to spoil me with it's owlbears and displacer beast options for my moon druid.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I do wonder if we might see some of those “beast-like monstrosities” become beasts in the new monster manual.

I wish they’d bring back monster subtypes and supertypes. Instead of “monstrosity” being a type on its own, you could have “monstrous” be a supertype. Then you could have monstrous beasts, monstrous humanoids, monstrous elementals, monstrous fey, etc.

I'd give someone else's left arm for fantastic animals that are just normal-ass animals in the setting be animals.

I'd give my own left arm for freaking workable keywording.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think it that, instead of a flavour text that tells a player how to play their Druid - with no mechanics in play enforce it, and, instead of having clear rules to penalize the PC for donning metal armour, they could have given the Druid a class feature that encouraged staying away from metal.

I don’t have a specific example for what that could be but something like: you get +1 AC; or +1 spell save dc or; access to an extra spell slot/cantrip when not wearing metal would have been a flavourful way of backing the traditional D&D lore but still give the player a choice (do I want higher AC or better spell saves?) without putting the onus on the dm to think of a way to either enforce it or look for a way to get the Druid a proper ac.

 

[Kobold Stew]

something like: you get +1 AC; or +1 spell save dc or; access to an extra spell slot/cantrip when not wearing metal

This would have been cool.

But again, "when not wearing metal" needs to be unpacked in a clear way. I would much prefer "when wearing no armor, light armor, or hide" (or whatever it is that they meant; we simply do not know -- when they had a chance to explain in sage advice, they made a joke instead).

 

[Clint_L]

I do wonder if we might see some of those “beast-like monstrosities” become beasts in the new monster manual.

I wish they’d bring back monster subtypes and supertypes. Instead of “monstrosity” being a type on its own, you could have “monstrous” be a supertype. Then you could have monstrous beasts, monstrous humanoids, monstrous elementals, monstrous fey, etc.

I wish I had more than one like to give. This is one area where the relative simplicity of 5e works to its disadvantage. Plus, I feel like creatures such as owlbears, griffons and phase spiders really are just beasts within a fantasy setting.

I think it that, instead of a flavour text that tells a player how to play their Druid - with no mechanics in play enforce it, and, instead of having clear rules to penalize the PC for donning metal armour, they could have given the Druid a class feature that encouraged staying away from metal.

I don’t have a specific example for what that could be but something like: you get +1 AC; or +1 spell save dc or; access to an extra spell slot/cantrip when not wearing metal would have been a flavourful way of backing the traditional D&D lore but still give the player a choice (do I want higher AC or better spell saves?) without putting the onus on the dm to think of a way to either enforce it or look for a way to get the Druid a proper ac.

I'm not crazy about offering the class something but putting a penalty on them for using it. I get that it then becomes a trade-off, like a barbarian using armour. The difference here is that barbarians were always built that way, whereas letting druids take armour seems mostly aimed at moon druids being able to use AC while wildshaped. Which is already meant to ameliorate a nerf to their wildshape, so sticking another nerf on top of that would rub folks the wrong way, IMO. "Here's a cool new thing, BUT those of you who could really use it are going to have to give something up to get it, and those of you who don't need it get a flat buff instead."

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

This would have been cool.

But again, "when not wearing metal" needs to be unpacked in a clear way. I would much prefer "when wearing no armor, light armor, or hide" (or whatever it is that they meant; we simply do not know -- when they had a chance to explain in sage advice, they made a joke instead).

Yup, I agree, it needs to be clearly explained.

I wish I had more than one like to give. This is one area where the relative simplicity of 5e works to its disadvantage. Plus, I feel like creatures such as owlbears, griffons and phase spiders really are just beasts within a fantasy setting.


I'm not crazy about offering the class something but putting a penalty on them for using it. I get that it then becomes a trade-off, like a barbarian using armour. The difference here is that barbarians were always built that way, whereas letting druids take armour seems mostly aimed at moon druids being able to use AC while wildshaped. Which is already meant to ameliorate a nerf to their wildshape, so sticking another nerf on top of that would rub folks the wrong way, IMO. "Here's a cool new thing, BUT those of you who could really use it are going to have to give something up to get it, and those of you who don't need it get a flat buff instead."

True. I mean, I suppose if you ‘give a bonus for not wearing metal armour’ can just as easily be construed as ‘being penalized for using metal armour.’

My point was that you’d make it in the same fashion as barbarians or monks but less of a full feature where it becomes a major penalty when wearing armour (the monk for instance). Instead, it’s a trade off with some flavour for why the trade exists.

If you trade AC for spell save dc, it benefits moon druids to wear armour because they aren’t casting spells while wild shaped (at least ones that have saving throws) but it benefits Circle druids to not wear metal armour because they cast lots of spells that have saves. But they weigh that with the fact that they will be easier to hit in their hide armour.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yup, I agree, it needs to be clearly explained.

True. I mean, I suppose if you ‘give a bonus for not wearing metal armour’ can just as easily be construed as ‘being penalized for using metal armour.’

My point was that you’d make it in the same fashion as barbarians or monks but less of a full feature where it becomes a major penalty when wearing armour (the monk for instance). Instead, it’s a trade off with some flavour for why the trade exists.

If you trade AC for spell save dc, it benefits moon druids to wear armour because they aren’t casting spells while wild shaped (at least ones that have saving throws) but it benefits Circle druids to not wear metal armour because they cast lots of spells that have saves. But they weigh that with the fact that they will be easier to hit in their hide armour.

This is not a restriction on the PC though, it's a restriction on the GM. "metal armor" is not defined but even under the loosest interpretation it's pretty much padded leather & hide. That's fine if we are talking about a class that can call dex it's primary or even secondary attribute, but we are not. At best dex is going to be tertiary behind wis & con.

+1 AC for "not wearing metal armor" is a class feature worth between 15 & 40gp depending on if the player settles on leather or hide armor. That right there is a class feature with no purpose other than to troll the player & as a result puts pressure on the GM when the player justifiably angles for "nonmetal" breastplate half plate or even plate for a base unmodified 18-19+shield AC. Problems don't stop there though because 5e does not have the mechanical hooks to differentiate that +1 from a +1 on the armor a +1 on the shield a +1 on a spell a +1 on an item like a ring/cloak of protection... etc.

The whole metal armor thing is a leftover victim of 5e's quest to simplify at any cost getting rid of bonus types that made it important due to barkskin giving a natural armor bonus as opposed to the armor shield enhancement & luck or deflection bonus granted by those other things. The very significant natural armor bonus stacked with all of those even if the other elements conflicted in nonstacking ways & as a result the nonmetal limitation was not simply trolling the player like this would be.