Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7623264" data-attributes="member: 58197">No, that is not the reason. I mostly play wizards, who get no armor at all, and have to devote a spell slot and a prepared spell to having a non-abysmal AC. But the wizard rules are straightforward: You are not proficient with any armor. You can put it on, but you can't cast spells if you do. If you want to wear armor and cast spells, here are the hoops you must jump through (multiclass, spend feats, or play a race with racial armor proficiency). All that is fine.If druids were limited to proficiency with light armor and hide, I would have no problem with that. Even if they had an additional built-in restriction saying &quot;You cannot use druid ability X while wearing Y armor, regardless of proficiency,&quot; that too would be fine--lots of classes have such restrictions, like monks.Where I have a problem is a restriction which is presented as if it were a rule, but is not written clearly enough for an actual rule (which armors count as metal? what replacement options exist, if any? what happens if you do wear metal armor?), and when asked for clarification, the designers say &quot;This is just a story thing, you can wear metal armor and it won't affect game balance if your DM is okay with it.&quot; Say what? Of course it affects game balance, metal armor is a lot better than non-metal armor! If druids were meant to be medium armor wearers, that ought to be spelled out in the rules and the non-metal restriction clearly presented as a non-binding story element. If not, that should also be spelled out, including details of precisely which armors are forbidden, and consequences imposed for wearing them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 7623264, member: 58197"] No, that is not the reason. I mostly play wizards, who get no armor at all, and have to devote a spell slot and a prepared spell to having a non-abysmal AC. But the wizard rules are straightforward: You are not proficient with any armor. You can put it on, but you can't cast spells if you do. If you want to wear armor and cast spells, here are the hoops you must jump through (multiclass, spend feats, or play a race with racial armor proficiency). All that is fine. If druids were limited to proficiency with light armor and hide, I would have no problem with that. Even if they had an additional built-in restriction saying "You cannot use druid ability X while wearing Y armor, regardless of proficiency," that too would be fine--lots of classes have such restrictions, like monks. Where I have a problem is a restriction which is presented as if it were a rule, but is not written clearly enough for an actual rule (which armors count as metal? what replacement options exist, if any? what happens if you do wear metal armor?), and when asked for clarification, the designers say "This is just a story thing, you can wear metal armor and it won't affect game balance if your DM is okay with it." Say what? Of course it affects game balance, metal armor is a lot better than non-metal armor! If druids were meant to be medium armor wearers, that ought to be spelled out in the rules and the non-metal restriction clearly presented as a non-binding story element. If not, that should also be spelled out, including details of precisely which armors are forbidden, and consequences imposed for wearing them. [/QUOTE]

Verification