Willie the Duck
Hero
I think people have raised the biggest reasons why the non-metal armor restriction wasn't working well in D&D 2014 -- it wasn't well explained, clearly delineated as how it was supposed to work, used an otherwise-not-used-this-edition 'character won't' form of restriction, etc. Also a major issue (IMO) is that no two DMs had the same ideas on how easy it should be to acquire non-metal breastplates or half-plate or the like. That means any discussion related to how impactful this limit is has an inherent overwhelming variance upon it that plenty of people did not want.
It's not clear to me exactly what the druid's non-metal armor rule was originally meant to be. Thematics is a prominent guess, but they still can use metal weapons*. Balance is another, although there's been so much change to go alongside it in terms of whether druids are more or less powerful than alternatives in each edition. Also confounding that is how much in each edition playing a often-attack-targeted druid meant changing into another shape instead of relying upon armor (and whether your armor matters when changed into another shape). *side note: using scimitars as the weapon of choice seems to have already dried up in 5e, but because of favoring Dex over Str, but also because Shillelagh (and Bear) are options.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that, while I don't in any way disagree with what you've said, I think the lore and overall vibe of the class has changed anyways, and I'm not sure whether keeping the non-metal armor bit would actually help that in any way, especially since the rest of the context of weapons and armor use has so radically changed.
At the same time, Clerics used non-edged weapons by default for a long time (minus all the exceptions, of course), and the game changed this to clerics (by default) not getting to use the best weapons with little negative effect. If there was a blurring between clerics and paladins in 3e (CoDzilla taking over a paladin's schtick), it was because of the massive number of combat self-buff spells clerics got, not whether they could use longswords or not.I don't mind the metal restriction for druids. It has been a part of that character class for decades, and I feel it really contributes to the lore and overall vibe of the class. Without it, the druid loses a bit of its distinction between cleric and ranger. And let's be honest: there's not a whole lot of distinction to begin with. But I can understand where players might be coming from: the druid class suffers the most in regard to armor options. The restriction isn't explained well, the penalties are undefined, and the class is written such that it does need armor but all options for it are uninspiring (at best). Hide armor + shield is pretty much the upper-limit for druids, and that's...kinda mediocre, isn't it?
It's not clear to me exactly what the druid's non-metal armor rule was originally meant to be. Thematics is a prominent guess, but they still can use metal weapons*. Balance is another, although there's been so much change to go alongside it in terms of whether druids are more or less powerful than alternatives in each edition. Also confounding that is how much in each edition playing a often-attack-targeted druid meant changing into another shape instead of relying upon armor (and whether your armor matters when changed into another shape). *side note: using scimitars as the weapon of choice seems to have already dried up in 5e, but because of favoring Dex over Str, but also because Shillelagh (and Bear) are options.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that, while I don't in any way disagree with what you've said, I think the lore and overall vibe of the class has changed anyways, and I'm not sure whether keeping the non-metal armor bit would actually help that in any way, especially since the rest of the context of weapons and armor use has so radically changed.