D&D 5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

[jgsugden]

Out of curiosity: If there were a dwarven druid in your game that focused on Earth Element magics (Move Earth, Magic Stone, Earth Tremor, Spike Growth), and was Circle of the Land (Mountain): Wouldn't the no-metal restriction feel a bit odd for that PC?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Out of curiosity: If there were a dwarven druid in your game that focused on Earth Element magics (Move Earth, Magic Stone, Earth Tremor, Spike Growth), and was Circle of the Land (Mountain): Wouldn't the no-metal restriction feel a bit odd for that PC?

I mentioned that earlier. If a player came to me with that concept I would allow the druid to replace the restriction with will only wear metal or stone armor (or similar vow).

As addressed earlier, and supported by sage advice, it isn't a balance issue, just theme/flavour.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would say there is nothing wrong with the way the rule in the druid section is written. However, the equipment section of the PHB does not make it sufficently clear that non-metallic alternatives are possible (apart from for shields). This can significantly disadvantage non-moon druids.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would say there is nothing wrong with the way the rule in the druid section is written. However, the equipment section of the PHB does not make it sufficently clear that non-metallic alternatives are possible (apart from for shields). This can significantly disadvantage non-moon druids.

That's why Druids have Barkskin.

Another wonderfully written rule by the way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's why Druids have Barkskin.

Another wonderfully written rule by the way.

No, Barkskin is for use when in animal form.

Given that Hide + Dex 14 + shield > Barkskin, it's basically useless in human form.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What basis? Taboo? That was only brought up in the Sage Advice. It's not in the 1e PHB, 2e PHB, 3e PHB or 5e PHB. There is no mention of why it exists other than the part in 1e and 3e that say that it messes up their magical abilities. 4e I don't know about.

If it's as the 1e and 3e PHB say it is and the only reason for not being able to wear metal armor is loss of magical abilities, nothing stop a PC from wearing it anyway. If it's as the 5e Sage Advice says and it's just a taboo like being kosher, then nothing stops a PC druid from wearing it anyway. It's no different than paladin and monk taboos, and there is no rules basis for a druid being more unable to wear metal armor if the PC is willing to put it on, than a paladin or monk.

He cited sage advice, and then proceeded to say no rhyme or reason. His own citation provided the reason, he’s just choosing to ignore anything not convenient to him. Just like you’re doing now.

I have no time to debate with people who aren’t going to argue honestly.

“It’s not a rule”
“Yes it is, here’s the definition of a rule and it fits the definition literally”
“Rules are only mechanical”
“No they are not, reread that definition again”

.....

“Here’s sage advice saying there is no mechanical penalty. That rule has no rhyme or reason.”
“The sage advice paragraph you just quoted tells you the rhyme or reason literally right there.”

It’s exasperating when not only do you ignore what everyone has cited for you out of the books, but you’re ignoring your own material you’re citing. What’s the point in continuing?

 

[Oofta]

As I noted at the beginning, no one complaining about the supposed "badly written" rule is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it. You know, anything from "Druid Explodes" to stating that the PHB rules on non-proficient armor should be enforced (PHB, p. 144).

It's the usual rules lawyering- trying to find a loophole (it's not CAN NOT, IT'S WILL NOT, SEE?) and instead of fixing it, arguing that it therefore is meaningless.

Words, man. What do they even mean?

Right. Remember though people have never said anywhere on this thread that a druid would ever wear metal armor, such as plate. Just that they could, if they wanted to and if you think it's not really a rule. Even though it is a rule. And people want their druids in metal armor. But they don't. It's badly implemented because there's not a paragraph justifying it unlike every other rule in the book except for the ones that don't. We can't just leave any consequence up to the DM because that means it's not really a rule. Except when it is. Or not.

Wait, what's being argued again?

[SBLOCK]
Queue the "You're misrepresenting what's being said because obviously you don't see what the issue is and you would agree if you actually took the time to read what we say." All because I happen to disagree with the very premise of the thread and think the rule is fine as is.
[/SBLOCK]

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Have you come across Jalhera in Baldur's Gate? She is a multiclassed Fighter/Druid and I have seen her stomping about in full plate despite being a faithful druid in good standing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*