• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
It's the same with celibate priests. Sometimes a celibate priest will have sex. They do not stop being a priest. Sometimes they will repent and seek forgiveness, perhaps doing some kind of penance. Sometimes they will cover it up and try to pretend it didn't happen, with or without the connivance of church.
Interesting analogy. One that actually proves a point, just the opposite of what you think. Laicization is the process of which a catholic priest loses all of their Uber god powerz. They are no longer a priest. RAW (to use D&D terms), any priest who marries or has sex will go through that process. It has not been followed through in some cases, but that doesn’t change how that’s the rule and process. Just like how if your gaming table won’t de-Druid a Druid who wears armor, that doesn’t change the fact that the rule is clear.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Nothing for 5e as far as I can tell, at least not in the core books. Which is the very topic of this thread: how haphazardly and poorly implemented the metal restriction is in 5e.
Not to be too obvious, but:

Why is it that there are, largely, two groups of people in this debate.

The first sees the druid restriction, understands it for what it is, and are like, "Okay, cool, if other people disagree with it, then they can just houserule it."

The second attempts to make various arguments that UNLESS the rule is perfect, then THE RULE DOESN'T APPLY. Now, notice how these individuals (you are one of them) doesn't do the following-

State that the rule is poorly implemented, and therefor propose a solution to implement it, such as:

"If a druid attempts to wear metal armor, or use a metal shield, then he or she shall lose the ability to cast any druid spells; such loss is complete the instant the action is taken to wear metal armor or use a metal shield. Should this use continue, further loss of class abilities will continue at the discretion of the DM, and if a druid willfully continues to wear metal armor or use a metal shield, the druid will be forced to abandon his or her class and adopt another.

VARIANT RULE: If a druid attempts to wear metal armor, or use a metal shield, then he or she shall spontaneously combust, taking fire damage of 10d20 per round until the metal armor and/or metal shield is removed."

There. Fixed. You should propose this to WoTC as errata.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
Interesting analogy. One that actually proves a point, just the opposite of what you think. Laicization is the process of which a catholic priest loses all of their Uber god powerz. They are no longer a priest. RAW (to use D&D terms), any priest who marries or has sex will go through that process. It has not been followed through in some cases, but that doesn’t change how that’s the rule and process. Just like how if your gaming table won’t de-Druid a Druid who wears armor, that doesn’t change the fact that the rule is clear.
In catholic teaching recent rulings override older ones. And the church has long taught that a priest who breaks their vows but repents is forgiven. In fact, it has often gone the other way (largely due to a shortage of priests), a priest who completely rejects the church, marries and has a family remains, in the eyes of the Church a priest. They cannot choose to stop being a priest no matter what they do.

Of course, if you rule that a character who is no called a druid cannot have the powers of a druid, then it clearly follows that a character who is not a Japanese noble cannot be a Samurai.
 

Psyzhran2357

Villager
matsifYesterday at 11:19 AM


the metal stuff for druids should be ignored. the celts were great bronze workers and the druid is mostly based on them, the whole "no metal" thing is silly at best.





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:20 AM


the celts invented chainmail





eerongalYesterday at 11:20 AM


pfft, as if i'd allow historical accuracy to taint my D&D game





NumbugYesterday at 11:20 AM


And who said metal is unnatural?





Red Rick DiasYesterday at 11:21 AM


The celts didn't invent chainmail, your momma did! The celts is THE DEVIL!



Hmm... would this make Bobby Boucher a Cleric of Momma until he class-changes into a Paladin of Vengeance later on?





matsifYesterday at 11:22 AM


the whole idea of "but no metal" when they are proficient in scimitars is a bit hypocritical to me as well if you ignore the "historical accuracy" things





NumbugYesterday at 11:22 AM


When looking at the d&d Druid you should definitely be thinking about it in terms of modern druidity, which is a lot more explicit about the whole nature thing



and even then, metal is a natural thing :U





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:22 AM


Like Neopagan stuff?





NumbugYesterday at 11:22 AM


So in terms of realism, it's a completely arbitrary restriction





matsifYesterday at 11:23 AM


especially when folks end up doing things like "well here's ironwood that does the same thing as metal for the sake of armor but isn't metal so you can actually have an AC"





RedYesterday at 11:23 AM


"modern druidity"





Red Rick DiasYesterday at 11:23 AM


I remember an old WOTC mini, the Greenfang Druid.



Which wore wood all over, but had a metal scimitar in hand.





eerongalYesterday at 11:23 AM


i think its more the idea of metal working being "unnatural" than metal itself being "unnatural"





NumbugYesterday at 11:23 AM


It got revived



I think it's niche?



But yeah





eerongalYesterday at 11:23 AM


though, doesnt apply to weapons for whatever reason





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:24 AM


Wicca I've heard of



as well as general Neopaganism



modern Druidism escaped my notice though





eerongalYesterday at 11:25 AM


in AD&D, the reason for not wearing metal armor was because it basically "cut them off" from their magic



like a barrier to it



in 5e, its basically a flavor hold over





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:27 AM


Meanwhile, Spore Druids are crying because unless you're a Warforged or a Tortle or a Loxodon, your AC is :):):):), so you'll get chewed up if you go into melee, but you need to go into melee to use your subclass features, and blargh...





matsifYesterday at 11:27 AM


yeah and paladins and bards and monks and druids used to have alignment restrictions from "flavor holdover." it's generally a nonsensical flavor limitation that people believe is a requirement because of where it is placed in the PHB that should be removed.





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:28 AM


It would work so much better if it was in the class introductory prelude



or better yet, in a grey sidebar



but not in the proficiencies list ffs





matsifYesterday at 11:29 AM


druid already has a perfect spot for it



"sacred woods and plants"



greenbox aside



but instead it's part of proficiencies so people take it as direct RAW, and then someone wants to play a druid that actually uses that medium armor proficiency and the DM ends up making "ironwood" or [insert carapace or chitin or other material] half plate so that the druid can circumvent that, at which point why even have the restriction





eerongalYesterday at 11:31 AM


i mean, its been clearly stated by WotC that druids explode if they put on metal armor(edited)








ConstructmanYesterday at 11:32 AM


They deal 15d8 thunder damage when they explode



in a 30 foot radius





PraxisYesterday at 11:32 AM


I feel like 5e has a bunch of things like that - restrictions or rules that exist for flavour but are placed in a way that sometimes give the impression they exist for balance reasons





matsifYesterday at 11:35 AM


people take the racial limitations on the SCAG subclasses that have them as direct RAW even though it says right in the limitation that the DM can ignore it





PraxisYesterday at 11:37 AM


same with backgrounds - they're very customizable RAW but plenty of people see an enumerated list and assume it's meant to cover all the available options





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:40 AM


I'd fix it by restricting druids to light armor (and maybe hide) but give them an armor bonus for wearing armor made out of animal or plant material





eerongalYesterday at 11:40 AM


that's actually a pretty good idea



give like a +2 AC for wearing armors made of cloth/leather/animal/plant stuffs



it helps encourage wearing "natural" armors





matsifYesterday at 11:41 AM


I just don't see the point of having the restriction to begin with if you're going to allow them to use metal in their weapons still





eerongalYesterday at 11:41 AM


or maybe even make it like an "unarmored defense" type thing





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:42 AM


because metal doesn't touch their body





matsifYesterday at 11:42 AM


if the culture is forging metal weapons then you're making a lot of logical jumps to think no one in the druid's culture would attempt to make metal armor





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:42 AM


Might be a sympathetic magic thing





eerongalYesterday at 11:42 AM


something like "when wearing armor made of plant/animal material you can instead use 10 + dex + wis for your AC"





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:42 AM


like a crescent is a holy symbol





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:42 AM


nah that'd give them the highest AC ever





morikahnYesterday at 11:43 AM


i think the restirction on druids using metal equipment is less about the material and its ties to civilization





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:43 AM


or it might be a feng shui thing, except on your body...???



but again





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:43 AM


they'd have like 25 AC with a shield





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:43 AM


that requires ACTUALLY EXPLAINING IT(edited)





morikahnYesterday at 11:43 AM


worked metal is a sign of an advanced civilization





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:43 AM


Anyway the reason druids can use metal weapons is because they need to be able to harvest sacred herbs for their rituals





ConstructmanYesterday at 11:43 AM


Stone knife: am I a joke to you?





Christ AvelloneYesterday at 11:43 AM


that's why they have scimitar proficiency: in 1e there was no "sickle" weapon and the scimitar was the closest to a druidic sickle



you try harvesting with a stone knife



you're more likely to crush your crop than slice it





matsifYesterday at 11:44 AM


I guess obsidian isn't real




 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Nothing for 5e as far as I can tell, at least not in the core books. Which is the very topic of this thread: how haphazardly and poorly implemented the metal restriction is in 5e.


It’s there, and has been pointed out. This whole “opinion =/= facts” thing appears to be throwing you for a loop.
 

Psyzhran2357

Villager
Not to be too obvious, but:

Why is it that there are, largely, two groups of people in this debate.

The first sees the druid restriction, understands it for what it is, and are like, "Okay, cool, if other people disagree with it, then they can just houserule it."

The second attempts to make various arguments that UNLESS the rule is perfect, then THE RULE DOESN'T APPLY. Now, notice how these individuals (you are one of them) doesn't do the following-

State that the rule is poorly implemented, and therefor propose a solution to implement it, such as:

"If a druid attempts to wear metal armor, or use a metal shield, then he or she shall lose the ability to cast any druid spells; such loss is complete the instant the action is taken to wear metal armor or use a metal shield. Should this use continue, further loss of class abilities will continue at the discretion of the DM, and if a druid willfully continues to wear metal armor or use a metal shield, the druid will be forced to abandon his or her class and adopt another.

VARIANT RULE: If a druid attempts to wear metal armor, or use a metal shield, then he or she shall spontaneously combust, taking fire damage of 10d20 per round until the metal armor and/or metal shield is removed."

There. Fixed. You should propose this to WoTC as errata.
That works on principle I guess, if they chose to commit to it on a mechanical level. As it stands, it's a lore holdover, but since lore is setting dependent, it's just... wearesgtrhdshdsgehrdnthswe5ythrtdyrhewy5htsrdnhsasehtnrdgthsaehtngrdxhsaewtrd

I'm just salty about Spore Druids because WHY DESIGN A GISH SUBCLASS IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE DEFENSES NECESSARY TO STAY ALIVE WHILE GISHING GIVE ME MY MUSHROOM SNORTING ZOMBIE RAISING GOLGARI HIPPY WITH ACTUAL DECENT AC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
In catholic teaching recent rulings override older ones. And the church has long taught that a priest who breaks their vows but repents is forgiven. In fact, it has often gone the other way (largely due to a shortage of priests), a priest who completely rejects the church, marries and has a family remains, in the eyes of the Church a priest. They cannot choose to stop being a priest no matter what they do.

Of course, if you rule that a character who is no called a druid cannot have the powers of a druid, then it clearly follows that a character who is not a Japanese noble cannot be a Samurai.


Nope. It’s a rule that if you get married or have sex, you go through Laicization. And it’s followed more often than not. Laicization Is also often done per the priests choice (like when they want to get married). So you’re wrong on that as well.

Me, raised Roman Catholic...
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
matsifYesterday at 11:19 AM


the metal stuff for druids should be ignored. the celts were great bronze workers and the druid is mostly based on them, the whole "no metal" thing is silly at best.
...snip a bunch of quotes from somewhere...

Resorting to appeal to popularity?

Don't like the rule? Change it when you DM.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
That works on principle I guess, if they chose to commit to it on a mechanical level. As it stands, it's a lore holdover, but since lore is setting dependent, it's just... wearesgtrhdshdsgehrdnthswe5ythrtdyrhewy5htsrdnhsasehtnrdgthsaehtngrdxhsaewtrd

I'm just salty about Spore Druids because WHY DESIGN A GISH SUBCLASS IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE DEFENSES NECESSARY TO STAY ALIVE WHILE GISHING GIVE ME MY MUSHROOM SNORTING ZOMBIE RAISING GOLGARI HIPPY WITH ACTUAL DECENT AC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Fair enough. Talk to the DM about your 'shroom dude. :)


(By the way, the whole lore/mechanics thing? That was kinda sorta the joke from the first post on, when the OP said that this NEVER EVER happened in any prior edition of D&D, when, in fact, this was the case for most of D&D's history.)
 

pogre

Adventurer
Druid is not a weak class. Do you think the restriction has anything to do with game balance? Not in the sense that every PC has to be the same - we know that paradigm was ejected again with 5e - just in the sense that Druid becomes too powerful with metal armor.

I get the sense this is just a D&D flavor thing - like Vancian magic and hit points. However, I am not a math guy and armor class seems like the second most important thing in the game during combat (hp being #1). I know I am extremely careful about giving out magic armor.
 

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.


Let's see how silly this semantic game can be with rules lawyers. C'mon, it's fun for the whole table!


It says that a Knight's retainer "will not" follow me into a dangerous area, like a Dungeon. (PHB 136). But it doesn't say that they will EXPLODE. Therefore, they follow me into the dungeon.

It says that if a Paladin violates their oath (PHB 86), then the DM might be an oathbreaker, or might just have to abandon the class completely for another class. Lack of specificity means that there can be no penalty, therefore there is no Paladin oath.

For pacts, it says to work with the DM to determine the role of the pact (p. 106); because working with DMs removes MUH PLAYA AGENCY it therefore doesn't exist, so the patron doesn't exist.

Etc.

Look, I have some easy, simple solutions:

1. There are no Druids. They have been consigned to the place where the Paladins reside.

2. Wearing metal causes Druids to spontaneously combust. Little known fact- 95% of all spontaneous combustion cases are caused by Druids trying to wear metal armor (the other 5% are a result of gnomes wielding rapiers).

3. To paraphrase Bob Marley, if you wear metal, "No druid, no spell."

See? Simple!

Now, if you want a houserule for druids to wear metal, then knock yourself out. Sorry, " If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."

Good luck! Don't explode!
Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.

Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor. It's simply that the average druid considers it to be taboo. PCs, being exceptional individuals, might not although there should arguably be in world consequences for breaking the taboo.

Similarly, the Knight's retainer won't typically go into a dungeon. However, if the Tarrasque ambushes the party at the dungeon entrance and chases them inside, it's up to the DM what happens. Maybe he's so paralyzed by fear and indecision that he dies trying to decide what to do. Maybe he high tails it into the dungeon. It's descriptive, and therefore is simply there to inform the DM of how this NPC is typically intended to be run. That's my read on it anyway.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.

Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor. It's simply that the average druid considers it to be taboo. PCs, being exceptional individuals, might not although there should arguably be in world consequences for breaking the taboo.

Similarly, the Knight's retainer won't typically go into a dungeon. However, if the Tarrasque ambushes the party at the dungeon entrance and chases them inside, it's up to the DM what happens. Maybe he's so paralyzed by fear and indecision that he dies trying to decide what to do. Maybe he high tails it into the dungeon. It's descriptive, and therefore is simply there to inform the DM of how this NPC is typically intended to be run. That's my read on it anyway.

You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"?

Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard set of classes but there is nothing wrong with customizing the game. Which is what everyone keeps saying.

Of course if you just accepted that this wouldn't be the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends ...
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...


Well, it lends me a little bit more credibility than someone whose never been exposed to the subject they are talking about. Especially since you’re wrong on your assumptions, as I explained and gave you what that process is. So rather than dismiss what I wrote by going after me personally, I’d prefer if you’d be able to provide supporting evidence to you’re argument. I have to say though, I’m guessing you won’t be able to because it’s objectively provable that priests can choose to lose their priesthood, and those infractions are, rules as written, justification to remove them from priesthood. Google Laicization.
 
Last edited:

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"?

Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard set of classes but there is nothing wrong with customizing the game. Which is what everyone keeps saying.

Of course if you just accepted that this wouldn't be the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends ...
Actually, I was referring to the druid armor section in the PHB where it says "won't". Crawford's clarification simply makes it clear that there is no RAW mechanical consequence for doing so unless the DM rules otherwise, and that it isn't even unbalanced to allow it.

As I've said more than once in this thread, the DM is free to rule as they please for their own game.

I was simply pointing out that (IMO) a descriptive interpretation of the aforementioned text makes significantly more sense than a prescriptive reading.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...
I don't want to go too far down this track, but to lend credence to your point, even laicization is about bureaucratic permissions for engaging in ritual activities, not what in D&D might be termed as "Class." It would be more liek the Acolyte Background losing the feature, not a Druid losing their mojo.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.
Let's see-
Druid:Class Features:proficiencies:
"Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids willnot wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

P. 65, PHB

Seem like a not rule to me!

Wait, let's look at the MULTICLASSING PROFICIENCIES GAINED!

Druid:
"Light armor, medium armor, shields (druidswill not wear armor or use shields made ofmetal)"

p. 164, PHB

Seems like a not rule to me! I mean ... a muticlassing not rule.

In fact, this "not rule" is also in the SRD. You know- the standard reference document for, um, not rules!


Wait, let's keep going because this is ... fun?


So, your best argument for the non-enforcement of the, um "not-rule" is Sage Advice.

Now, first off, Sage Advice is not official rules, it is official rulings. There is a difference (official rules are in the errata). So you can't, and shouldn't, refer to them as RAW- just as RAI. Good? :)

But more importantly, your best support states explicitly the following:

"If youfeel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. ... If you want todepart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say onhow far you can go and still be considered a member of theclass."

You understand what this means, yes?

"Hey, DM! I wanna be a Cleric that uses only MU spells, because I like the Cleric mechanics but don't believe in divinities yada yada yada."

"Hey, DM! I wanna be a Paladin with all the cool Paladin powers but no oath yada yada yada."

"Hey, DM! I wanna be a Warlock, but without a patron, because that's annoying, something something Ima eldritch blast everything."

"Hey DM! Alighnment is stupid, so Ima not even write it down on my character sheet."

"Hey DM! Did you know that Hit Points aren't meat... let me explain it to you like I would a slightly dumb golden retriever ..."

Look, run want you want. That's what Crawford is saying. But don't play silly word games to try to make rules, not rules.

It's your table, but don't try to bag of rats me at my table, or tell me that the very clear wording isn't there.


Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor.
You're right. You don't cease to be a druid, because per RAW, you will not put on the armor.

See. Easy.

Done
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

Villager
Maybe you and I have different standards of balance. I don't think any full caster should ave an AC over 16-17 without magic items, i just doesn't balance well.
Clerics? Valor Bards? Any other caster that puts in the effort to get a shield and light or medium armor? Heck, it's just as easy, and often easier, for full casters to get AC of their tank, than it is for martial classes like the Monk or the Rogue to do the same.

"Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is about as clear a rule as I've seen in the book. Feel free to run it differently in your game.
And that rule has been further clarified in the Sage Advice as to what it means. It is made clear that there is nothing preventing them from doing so, and that there is no penalty if they do. It's only a choice, and players are free to ignore the typical choices of their class. Of course the DM can deny people ignoring a story aspect of their class, but that's true of anything, so it's kind of lazy to point to in a question of official rulings.

Vegetarians will not eat meat. If my vegetarian nephew eats steak he is not a vegetarian. If a PC wears metal armor they are not a druid.
A vegetarian is defined as someone that doesn't eat meat. A Druid is not defined as someone that doesn't wear metal. Not wearing metal is simply a choice that some or most Druids make, but just not wearing metal is not what makes them a Druid. Monks will not wear armor because they lose the monastic abilities they have trained, but they don't stop being a Monk when they put on armor. That's just one element of the class's story that's typical in the game world, but PCs are special cases, and choosing not to abide by it does not make the character explode.

DMs are free to punish Druid players that wear armor if that's what they wish, but that's true of anything. The point is that there is no mechanical restriction if they choose to do so, as per the official rules, so penalizing them for doing so is a house rule of the DM.

By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.
Nothing in the rules state that, and the response in Sage Advice clarifies it as a preference in the lore and not a requirement. You can rule it that way, but it does not say that anywhere.

Sorry, " If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
That's not really a line for rules clarification as it's true of literally anything. The clarification in the Sage Advice was that there is nothing that prevents a Druid from wearing metal armor besides personal choice, and there is no penalty in the game system for Druids that do so. Just because they stated that the DM can decide otherwise does not mean that is not the rule as written. Your DM can rule that if you have an INT of 18 that you're too intellectual to be a Half-Orc Barbarian, or that by wearing armor you abandon all of your monastic training as a Monk and must abandon the class. The DM is in their right to do this, but that doesn't make it a core rule.

Why is it that there are, largely, two groups of people in this debate.

The first sees the druid restriction, understands it for what it is, and are like, "Okay, cool, if other people disagree with it, then they can just houserule it."

The second attempts to make various arguments that UNLESS the rule is perfect, then THE RULE DOESN'T APPLY.
The issue is that the first camp doesn't understand it for what it is. The first camp says that because it says they will not, they can not. The Sage Advice stated that they can, because there's nothing in the game system that stops them. It's a typical preference of Druids, but not a mandatory one, because unlike previous editions, there's not a penalty for it. They were very clear on this.

You should propose this to WoTC as errata.


It doesn't have to be proposed to the errata because it is already covered in the Sage Advice, which is just as official as the errata.

Druid is not a weak class. Do you think the restriction has anything to do with game balance? Not in the sense that every PC has to be the same - we know that paradigm was ejected again with 5e - just in the sense that Druid becomes too powerful with metal armor.
But it's not a strong class. Few tables have a Druid. In fact, I'm pretty sure the numbers show it's by far the least played class in the game. If it was mechanically powerful, people would play it. The Moon Druid is quite powerful through levels 2 and 4 when many other classes have yet to really develop, but that's about all the Druid has going for it. Sure, it's not terribly unplayable, as 5E is mostly balanced in the sense that you're never useless (unless you take strides to be), but whatever purpose you're looking to fill as a Druid, other classes do it better. In fact, if you just want to role play the Druid, you'll be better off as a Nature Cleric of the Old Faith, unless you solely want to shapeshift as a Moon Druid.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
It doesn't have to be proposed to the errata because it is already covered in the Sage Advice, which is just as official as the errata.
That's not true: Sage Advise is a set of advise to Dungeon Masters, and not binding in any fashion.
 

Advertisement

Top