D&D 5E What armor can druids wear? Is there a way to get a decent AC?

[CapnZapp]

You seem to be mixing up two completely different things here, defcon:

a) me telling you how to run your game
and
b) me discussing the rules as written

I am in no way shape or form trying to tell you how to think about barkskin, or how you should run barkskin in your game.

I am, however, saying that your barkskin isn't the one described in the rulebook. But that is all I'm saying. Your barkskin might be better, it might be more logical; all that's beside the issue, however.

Cheers and have a good game!

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you all want to really interpret it that way, more power to you...

That's going way past my sniff test and I find it makes absolutely no logical sense. But your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure anyone is saying the spell is particularly well designed, but I think the intention is clear.

If you don't like it, the play test version (straight +2 AC, which would stack with cover, shield, etc.) is always available to use.

 

[Li Shenron]

I can't believe that we're playing an edition where Paladins don't have to be Good and Wizards can cast in armor... but we're still stuck with Druids unable to wear metal?

 

[77IM]

And I hate that it's notated as a parenthetical on the proficiency line. "(Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)."

Why are they telling me what my character will and won't do? Isn't that mine to decide? (It's really the only thing I get to decide.) What happens if my druid changes his mind after seeing how effective breastplate and half-plate are? Do I have to stop being a druid?

They should have either 1) explained the consequences of wearing metal armor (even if it's soft roleplaying consequences, like, "you are breaking your oath and other druids will not like you") or else 2) just given druids proficiency in padded, leather, studded leather, hide armor, and shields. I think I'll house rule option 2, since the parenthetical restriction is on the proficiency line and could be interpreted as a limit on proficiency, with the odd "will not" phrasing meant to explain why the druid's armor training is so lopsided and not as a dictate of future behavior.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why are they telling me what my character will and won't do? Isn't that mine to decide? (It's really the only thing I get to decide.) What happens if my druid changes his mind after seeing how effective breastplate and half-plate are? Do I have to stop being a druid?

I think they left it intentionally vague, to give DMs maximum latitude in interpreting it, because the most obvious consequence would be too hard-core for new players to deal with.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think they left it intentionally vague, to give DMs maximum latitude in interpreting it.

Yes.

Welcome to 5e being not-3e, 771!

 

[CapnZapp]

If you don't like it, the play test version (straight +2 AC, which would stack with cover, shield, etc.) is always available to use.

I realize you're just summarizing, but based on what you're saying, that play version is brokenly unbalanced. A +2 stacks-with-everything bonus is clearly too powerful for such a low-level spell.

To me, it would be much more interesting if the spell explored as-of-yet untested, but fairly safe, waters.

Example:
Barkskin: Your base AC is 13 + Con.

This way, most complaints would be settled (the spell would stack with shields etc), and there would not be any unexpected side effects.

 

[Scorpio616]

Is there a way to get a decent AC?

No. Game devs have screwed most ways to crank up AC so most PCs get hit by monsters under the Bounded Accuracy concept.

 

[Eejit]

This is why all druids are such rabid dragon-hunters. They just can't wait to harvest a set of scales.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess the spell should be rewritten as:

Your skin becomes barklike, stiffening so that it protects and hinders your movement like a suit of chain mail. (Base AC 16, no dex modifier) Shield and cover bonuses apply.

Even not RAW, seems like the best solution.