| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Simply put, are Druids allowed to wear studded leather?
Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not by RAW; though they can pick up leaf armor for 500gp, which functions as masterwork Studded-leather in terms of stats.
Page 49 of the core rule book states "...thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell."
Pretty clear cut.
One type of high-end armor a druid can wear is Dragonhide Plate armor, but requires that you have the heavy armor proficiency feat (or a class level that has this feat in it).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.
You can get Bulette armour as well, which can be made into plate, leather or studded. It's in Dungeon Denizens Revisited which is strictly 3.5, but says that it's compatible with PF. Stats for Studded Bulette aren't given, but Bulette Leather used normal studded stats aside from costing 50gp.
See this.
Lamellar leather is a good armor for a druid as well.
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.
I think it's more of a civilization vs wilderness thing here. Metal requires mining and specialized working, usually by a smith of some sort. The Druid-wearable armor generally requires skills more appropriate for a wilderness society. While Urban Druids still have these restrictions, this is more of an issue of not wanting to make urban druids significantly better than a vanilla druid in terms of weapons and armor.
"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor".
ubnfortunately, this line being written the way it does excludes all the funky new eastern armourssuch as lamellar leather & ceremonial silk, rosewood and wood are not listed.
By stipulating 'only' instead of using 'such as' they removed the ability to go beyond what is listed.
"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor".
ubnfortunately, this line being written the way it does excludes all the funky new eastern armourssuch as lamellar leather & ceremonial silk, rosewood and wood are not listed.
By stipulating 'only' instead of using 'such as' they removed the ability to go beyond what is listed.
Not sure what the ruling is in PFS, but I don't think I've ever heard of a DM saying you can't wear a leather Lamellar, because of the words "only" in the druids' proficiency lines.
Oh I agree, common sense should come into play - however for cold hard RAW that's all the CRB gives poor Druids.
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.I think it's more of a civilization vs wilderness thing here. Metal requires mining and specialized working, usually by a smith of some sort. The Druid-wearable armor generally requires skills more appropriate for a wilderness society. While Urban Druids still have these restrictions, this is more of an issue of not wanting to make urban druids significantly better than a vanilla druid in terms of weapons and armor.To understand the trope you need to understand the history of where the "Fey" came from.
What we know of as the midieval civilisations of Europe, the Celts, the Angle Saxons, were not the original inhabitants of the lands that symbolise them and their tales. They settled them generally by wiping out predecessor cultures like the Picts, who were limited to primitive in some cases Neolithic weaponry. After their extinction, these peoples faded from history to collective legend assuming a half-remembered shadowy presence. The tales about them changed and grew into faerie tropes. And because the Picts and other groups were wiped out by "modern" iron weapons by troops wearing iron armor, iron became the legendary bane of the fey. And because TSR wrapped the Druid in the celtic faerie mode, they inherited such banes.
Oh, I understand it.
I just don't care all that much.
The best core armor for a druid is a dragonhide breastplate. Depending on your GM, it might be a bit hard to come by as you'd need the hide of a colossal dragon for a medium sized armor. Still, it's priced at a reasonable 700 gp so by RAW, every small town or bigger settlement should have a decent chance to sell one.
If the base value of towns applies to rare materials, that is. The rules only speak of magical items.
Are there rules for the availability of rare material items somewhere?
Its still an outdated clause and should be changed to reflect the current armour offerings, rather than restrict a druid to three armour types (or ironwood).
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.Actually you're misreading the RAW.
Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.
The only written prohibition is metal armor. The thus part of the description refers to the only non-metal armors in the Core Rulebook. The first part specifically states the prohibition to be metal armor.
So YES Virginia your Druid can wear leaf armor.
No, that is not what the line says. It says "they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.".
That is RAW.
If a specific armor entry says that a druid can wear it, however, then that would be an exception. Since it can be safely assumed that ALL books know about the druid restriction, since the druid is core, then absent a specific 'druids can wear this' clause in the armor description.... then druids cannot.
That is RAW.
Most people skim past it, beause... well, the RAI is clear enough.
Example of the sort of clause you're going to be looking for;
"Because dragonhide armor isn't made of metal, druids can wear it without penalty."
Metal armor is exactly that, armor that is predominately metal. Chain Shirt, Breastplate, Chainmail, etc. They can wear anything like that that is made of wood/ironwood. So you can reasonably assume that even if it is an issue, you can get leather with wood/bone/whatever studs instead.
Yes, but would leather with wood studs work? I mean, yes, I could get studs made of peppermint candy put into a suit of leather armor, but aside from making me easier to track by scent (and possibly providing emergency rations) it wouldn't do much, because the studs aren't strong enough to take a blow.
If we're talking about wooden studs the size of dowel rods, they'd be no more effective than candy canes. From an engineering point of view, the nice thing about metal studs is that they don't crush, so they take a blow, spread the impact out, and keep the armor from falling apart if it's hit with a cutting edge. Wood or bone wouldn't do any of that.
The studs on studded leather aren't for 'taking a blow' they're for deflecting a blow, causing it to glance off, rather than bite in.
We could also get into the wide history of the game, and in every iteration previously, Druids can wear studded leather armor.
Incorrect. Both 3.5 and AD&D prohibited studded leather.
Wish Paizo would weigh in directly here. I don't see how studded leather armor suddenly becomes something other than leather. The armor itself is made of leather; studs, whether metal, bone, wood (or Peppermint Candy; love that!) are attached to it, not an integral part of it. If the metal being attached somehow alters the armor, what about buckles?
I disagree, I would say the metal studs are absolutely integral part of studded leather armor. Without them it would just be leather armor.
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.So it doesn't make sense because you don't care about its explanation? That's quite the mental gymnastics you're doing there.Oh, I understand it.
I just don't care all that much.
Not really. I can understand someone's justification for something without agreeing with it. You've never said 'Yeah, I see where you get that, but I still think you're wrong'?
I'm sure the reasons given are why druids have that restriction. I simply find those reasons lacking. As stated, metal is every bit as natural as hide, plus they can still use or wear anything else made of metal. With that data, I find that restriction completely nonsensical.
even though the druid entry only lists leather, padded, and hide the intention should be seen that any armor that is not metal should be allowed. Also don't forget dragon hide breastplate.
Asta
PSY
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.Actually you're misreading the RAW.
Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.
The only written prohibition is metal armor. The thus part of the description refers to the only non-metal armors in the Core Rulebook. The first part specifically states the prohibition to be metal armor.
So YES Virginia your Druid can wear leaf armor.
No, that is not what the line says. It says "they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.".
That is RAW.
If a specific armor entry says that a druid can wear it, however, then that would be an exception. Since it can be safely assumed that ALL books know about the druid restriction, since the druid is core, then absent a specific 'druids can wear this' clause in the armor description.... then druids cannot.
That is RAW.
Most people skim past it, beause... well, the RAI is clear enough.
That line does use the word 'may'...as in, it doesn't say you may not wear other, nonmetal armors. From the list of core only armors, those are the ones that fit the prerequisites, and they were listed there to give a short hand. It never excluded other, newer armors made from 'natural' materials
But the fact that studded leather is not included in that original list does indicate that, yes, it is too metal for a druid. *note to self: campaign where a druid is trying to kill a band of heavy metal bards; make him extremely old fashioned*
Wish Paizo would weigh in directly here. I don't see how studded leather armor suddenly becomes something other than leather. The armor itself is made of leather; studs, whether metal, bone, wood (or Peppermint Candy; love that!) are attached to it, not an integral part of it. If the metal being attached somehow alters the armor, what about buckles? Is leather armor tied on with things? Gaff tape? Saying that leather armor is no longer leather because it has metal studs added would be like saying your plate armor is leather because it has leather straps to fasten it on your body. If the description said "Metal Studded Armor" is prohibited, or was the armor type that would be different. The word "leather" is part of the description, therefore it is leather.
With leather armor, the protective part is the leather. (Usually boiled and hardened, think of a rawhide chewtoy.)
With studded leather armor, the protective part is the studs. (The leather is a flexible backing that makes sure the studs stay in proximity to the person they are protecting.)
Art that shows leather armor as being akin to a leather jacket and studded leather as having widely spaced studs is simply wrong, the same way art that shows 'cleavage windows' and such in full plate is wrong.
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.
Ore is natural. Skin and hide are natural. Meat is natural.
Metal, leather, jerky, and cooked foods are all varying levels of unnatural. Everything is derived from 'natural' ingredients if you follow the chain far enough back.
And keep in mind, we're talking about a universe where magic cares if stone is worked or unworked.
There are plenty of reasons to say druids can use metallic armors (such as their ability to use metallic weapons, etc.) But I think it is a fallacy to say that tanning of leather from skin is exactly the same as the mining, smelting, refining, and forging of metal from ore. A plate of steel bears very little resemblance to the heap of coal and hematite from which it was made, whereas leather still clearly resembles the skin from which it was made.
|
Actually you're misreading the RAW.
Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.
The only written prohibition is metal armor. The thus part of the description refers to the only non-metal armors in the Core Rulebook. The first part specifically states the prohibition to be metal armor....
No, that is not what the line says. It says "they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor.".
That is RAW.
If a specific armor entry says that a druid can wear it, however, then that would be an exception. Since it can be safely assumed that ALL books know about the druid restriction, since the druid is core, then absent a specific 'druids can wear this' clause in the armor description.... then druids cannot.
Example of the sort of clause you're going to be looking for;
"Because dragonhide armor isn't made of metal, druids can wear it without penalty."
Actually, this proves you're reading RAW wrong.
Because dragonhide isn't made of metal, druids can wear it.
The armour is not made of metal -> druid can wear the armour.
This makes it clear that the relevant portion of the rule is "are prohibited from wearing metal armor" and "thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor" is simply applying the rule to the armours existing at the time. Again, the word "thus" indicates that the armours' non-metal status allows them to be worn.
If "only padded, leather, or hide armor" was the actual restriction, the dragonhide entry would read "despite not being padded, leather, or hide, druids can wear dragonhide" or even just "druids can wear dragonhide," and the druid entry would omit "thus."
The reason that druids aren't referenced with every new non-metal armour is that it takes up space and should be obvious - dragonhide only specifically refers to the druid because that's the major advantage of dragonhide over metal armour.
This thread got me thinking hypothetically about multiclassed druids who started life as Sorcerer or Wizard in a family of magical armorsmiths that create fanciful mundane armors with spells and further enchant them with further mystical knowledge. What would be the place of magic in the scheme of how armor works if you are the one that created the metal armor through magic and not through the "modern" methods, which is what the restriction is there for? Would the logic now be changed somehow that because it is shaped to fit a humanoid the restricting factor is still in place? If so that throws out the whole concept of wearing any type of armor shaped for a humanoid.
Sorcerer 10 or Wizard 9 / Druid 1+
5th Level Spell Known: Major Creation or Fabricate
Skill: Craft (Armor) 10+ ranks, with the more you have the fancier the metal armors you can reliably make.
I see no reason that this could not be a loophole on some level.
What would be the place of magic in the scheme of how armor works if you are the one that created the metal armor through magic and not through the "modern" methods, which is what the restriction is there for? Would the logic now be changed somehow that because it is shaped to fit a humanoid the restricting factor is still in place?
To be fair the core rulebook doesn't actually state that as the reason they cannot wear metal armor. As far as I know it's just a commonly accepted reason. Could just be one of the tenants of that particular druidic order or something. So any answer other than "No, they can't wear metal armor at all" would be GM fiat based on the particulars of the world your in. If your situation came up in my game I would totally allow it.
To be fair the core rulebook doesn't actually state that as the reason they cannot wear metal armor. As far as I know it's just a commonly accepted reason. Could just be one of the tenants of that particular druidic order or something. So any answer other than "No, they can't wear metal armor at all" would be GM fiat based on the particulars of the world your in. If your situation came up in my game I would totally allow it.
Since it is a hypothetical, thus open to interpretation, I tried to keep it open in the reasoning for the rules with the term "modern" as a counterterm for the more common classic "natural/in tune with nature" justification.
Not by RAW, but the druid armor restriction makes no sense. Metal is every bit as natural as leather and hide.Ore is natural. Skin and hide are natural. Meat is natural.
Metal, leather, jerky, and cooked foods are all varying levels of unnatural. Everything is derived from 'natural' ingredients if you follow the chain far enough back.
And keep in mind, we're talking about a universe where magic cares if stone is worked or unworked.
There are plenty of reasons to say druids can use metallic armors (such as their ability to use metallic weapons, etc.) But I think it is a fallacy to say that tanning of leather from skin is exactly the same as the mining, smelting, refining, and forging of metal from ore. A plate of steel bears very little resemblance to the heap of coal and hematite from which it was made, whereas leather still clearly resembles the skin from which it was made.
I see it as the same, because you're still treating the material, and as you say, it's all unnatural. If druids were really all about nature, they wouldn't wear clothes or use tools at all. More reasons I think the class makes no sense. :)
Of course, if you get right down to it, anything that happens in accordance with the physical laws of the universe is natural. The universe is a closed system; anything that occurs within is, by definition, natural. It's when other planes add to a closed system that things become 'unnatural'.
Metal armor block the nature juju from getting to the druidic chackra.
Metal armor block the nature juju from getting to the druidic chackra.
Do we have a fantasy equivalent of 'Treknobabble'? Because that was definitely it. :)
"Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish ..."
Metal armor block the nature juju from getting to the druidic chackra.Do we have a fantasy equivalent of 'Treknobabble'? Because that was definitely it. :)
"Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish ..."
Crap, I accidentally reversed the polarity on my Druid and now he wears fullplate and casts arcane spells D:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanobabble instead of technobabble?
Crap, I accidentally reversed the polarity on my Druid and now he wears fullplate and casts arcane spells D:Metal armor block the nature juju from getting to the druidic chackra.Do we have a fantasy equivalent of 'Treknobabble'? Because that was definitely it. :)
"Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish ..."
Can he only wildshape into dragons, undead, and eventually golems?
|
|
...? someone write down this archetype, it is relevant to my interests.Crap, I accidentally reversed the polarity on my Druid and now he wears fullplate and casts arcane spells D:Can he only wildshape into dragons, undead, and eventually golems?
I was working on a "construct druid" archetype a few months back. They didn't have the metal restriction, had a few spells added to/removed from their list, and took on construct characteristics instead of having wild shape. There was also an "undead shaman" but it was a separate archetype.
Both lost the druidic language because other druids consider them heretical.