Why Do Druids Not Like Metal Armor and Does It Even Matter?


Classes


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The first question is exactly as the title: why do Druids have "wearing metal armor" as an anathema?

It can't be because of some kind of concern about mining metal being environmentally unfriendly. They don't have a problem using metal weapons and that metal also comes from mining. It's not like the metal or the Druid knows how it was mined. "I came from a forest-safe mine, so I can be forged into a weapon (and so be used by a Druid), but the gods preserve you if you try to turn me into armor instead." What happens if all those weapons forged from metal mined in an environmentally friendly way get smelted down into armor instead?

It can't be because of some kind of metal-derived-interference between the natural environment and the Druid, either. Because he is only prohibited from metal armor. Give him a metal helmet. Metal boots, metal gauntlets, a metal belt, none of it makes a difference or somehow blocks the "nature signals" the Druid is using to cast his spells. Heck, the only reason a Druid can't wear a metal cloak is the same reason a Fighter can't: to my knowledge, there isn't one. As long as it's not providing an AC bonus, a Druid can dec himself out in the metaliest metal that ever did metal.

So what is the in-universe explanation?

Secondly, does it even matter? The game specifies that shields come in "wooden" and "steel". It also goes on list some special materials (adamantine, mithral, darkwood, etc.) and whether they are metal or not. The game does not, however, spell out what the basic armors are made out of. So for all I know, plate armor is made out of either metal or the alchemically treated shells of, say, giant crabs (if Golarion has Druids and Alchemists, Golarion will eventually have an order of Druids commissioning a cabal of Alchemists to help them get better armor). And for all I know, studded leather is leather studded with rocks, crystals, and/or hard wooden knobs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the Shocking Grasp spell has a different effect for metal armor, the PF2 rules will spell out which armor counts as metal. I suspect that studded leather armor will count as leather and plate armor will count as metal.

I wonder whether the purpose of the no-metal-armor rule was to allow player characterss to recognize druids at a glance. "He's wearing hide armor and carrying a scimitar. Probably a druid."

Some orders could develop reasonable in-game excuses for not wearing metal armor. Storm druids might have found that metal armor attracts lightning. Animal druids might find that metal armor makes transformation more difficult. But those are different from making metal armor anathema. "Avoid metal armor and shields but not other metal" sounds like a religious observance rather than anything based in nature or in primal magic. And religious observances would make druids just a variety of cleric.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The metal armor thing goes back to druids communing with fae (and we all know fae have a thing about cold iron.) After researching it that is the best reason I have found why the 1st D&D druid does not like to wear metal armor it interferes with there fae buddies and fae and nature are kind of connected etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just a legacy holdover that wasn't well thought out in the first place when it was first instituted decades ago, and that the writers of PF2 just imported directly without even thinking about it.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for the druid to have a choice of taboos. Give em a bit more of a shamanic feel. They do have a semi-religious connection to nature and The World, but this will still feel different than just a variety of cleric. A taboo against metal armor would still be a viable taboo (but should probably be extended to other non-weapon worn metal gear to be consistent), but there should be other taboos to choose from too.


It may not make sense thematically... But I have a strong attachment to the restriction. Primarily because my first TTRPG character was a Druid in ADnD. Again - I know it really doesn't make sense but TRADITION! TRADITION!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah most of it is tradition, But I'm pretty sure the designer of the class back in first edition was thinking about the whole fae and cold iron thing. I think druids spell originally was suppose to come from nature spirits which I guess were a lot like fae as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

It's just a legacy holdover that wasn't well thought out in the first place when it was first instituted decades ago, and that the writers of PF2 just imported directly without even thinking about it.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for the druid to have a choice of taboos. Give em a bit more of a shamanic feel. They do have a semi-religious connection to nature and The World, but this will still feel different than just a variety of cleric. A taboo against metal armor would still be a viable taboo (but should probably be extended to other non-weapon worn metal gear to be consistent), but there should be other taboos to choose from too.

Yeah, D&D was really big on pointless, arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions back before 3.0. Like class race combo restrictions and level limits. Or Clerics not being able to play with sharp objects because of a nonsensical restriction on shedding blood. Bashing some dude's skull in with a flanged mace is ok, even though it will shed a load of blood. This is one of those. Metal is fine, unless it's armor. Because reasons.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah most of it is tradition, But I'm pretty sure the designer of the class back in first edition was thinking about the whole fae and cold iron thing. I think druids spell originally was suppose to come from nature spirits which I guess were a lot like fae as well.

But it was metal in general, not cold iron. They couldn't wear bronze armor either. And they can use metal weapons and other items, even stuff that they wear. Just not anything that gives an AC bonus.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah most of it is tradition, But I'm pretty sure the designer of the class back in first edition was thinking about the whole fae and cold iron thing. I think druids spell originally was suppose to come from nature spirits which I guess were a lot like fae as well.
But it was metal in general, not cold iron. They couldn't wear bronze armor either. And they can use metal weapons and other items, even stuff that they wear. Just not anything that gives an AC bonus.

I know but I'm still sure that was the reasoning the creators used. I've done a little research on it and that is the best reason one can find why the first edition druid can't use metal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah, D&D was really big on pointless, arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions back before 3.0. Like class race combo restrictions and level limits. Or Clerics not being able to play with sharp objects because of a nonsensical restriction on shedding blood. Bashing some dude's skull in with a flanged mace is ok, even though it will shed a load of blood. This is one of those. Metal is fine, unless it's armor. Because reasons.

It was actually based on a popular misinterpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry that Odo wielding a mace implied that clerics couldn't wield bladed weapons.

Tectorman wrote:
Secondly, does it even matter? The game specifies that shields come in "wooden" and "steel". It also goes on list some special materials (adamantine, mithral, darkwood, etc.) and whether they are metal or not. The game does not, however, spell out what the basic armors are made out of. So for all I know, plate armor is made out of either metal or the alchemically treated shells of, say, giant crabs (if Golarion has Druids and Alchemists, Golarion will eventually have an order of Druids commissioning a cabal of Alchemists to help them get better armor). And for all I know, studded leather is leather studded with rocks, crystals, and/or hard wooden knobs.

I mean, actual studded leather armor was called brigandine, and the studs were actually holding metal sheets in place to line the inside. It was basically the medieval equivalent of wearing a Kevlar vest under civilian clothes...

Also, the alchemically treated shells reminds me of my silliest-sounding complaint about 3.PF and one of the more entertaining homebrew subsystems I've seen. Instead of Hide armor always being exactly a +4 bonus, no matter what natural armor bonus the animal had whose hide you're making it from, rules for taking whatever animal's hide you want and making armor from it and using their natural armor bonus for the manufactured armor bonus. And on a related note, also being able to drag back carapaces of various monsters and making those into armor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The metal armor thing goes back to druids communing with fae (and we all know fae have a thing about cold iron.) After researching it that is the best reason I have found why the 1st D&D druid does not like to wear metal armor it interferes with there fae buddies and fae and nature are kind of connected etc.

I don't honestly remember much of anything about druids and fey in AD&D. Various faeries existed, but that was about it. Druids didn't care about or interact with them any more than anyone else.

The main reason for Druids to have metal armor anathema in PF2 is they're smart enough to realize most medium and heavy armor is actively terrible for survival as currently written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Depending on the magical tradition, druids are "supposed" to be priests of nature; mainly living things (animals and plants). Encasing their bodies in armor made from material that was never alive (i.e., metal rather than leather or wood) will disrupt a druid's connection with nature and their ability to use "nature magic" to cast spells.

Use of metal weapons is less disruptive. However, AD&D still called on druids to limit their use of "unnatural" material as much as possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:

Depending on the magical tradition, druids are "supposed" to be priests of nature; mainly living things (animals and plants). Encasing their bodies in armor made from material that was never alive (i.e., metal rather than leather or wood) will disrupt a druid's connection with nature and their ability to use "nature magic" to cast spells.

Use of metal weapons is less disruptive. However, AD&D still called on druids to limit their use of "unnatural" material as much as possible.

There again, that explanation works until the Druid is wearing a metal helmet, metal gauntlets, metal boots, etc. His nature magic already gets around being encased by material that was never alive (as long as there's no AC bonus).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A common old belief in many cultures is that iron is a powerful ward off against supernatural beings, almost allways natural spirits such as fairies. Usually people used to hang horseshoes in the houses's doors as horseshoes were an easily available source of iron, they could be nailed above a door to prevent any unwanted, otherworldly guests.

D&D takes a lot from myths and folkloric traditions, so it makes sense that a druid keep iron away from himself keep their link with the nature pure.


Dress for the job you want.

Hard to imagine a plate mail wearing druid gathering herbs in the garden, tending bee hives, or riding an Earth elemental into battle.:-)


Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The metal armor thing goes back to druids communing with fae (and we all know fae have a thing about cold iron.) After researching it that is the best reason I have found why the 1st D&D druid does not like to wear metal armor it interferes with there fae buddies and fae and nature are kind of connected etc.

I don't honestly remember much of anything about druids and fey in AD&D. Various faeries existed, but that was about it. Druids didn't care about or interact with them any more than anyone else.

The main reason for Druids to have metal armor anathema in PF2 is they're smart enough to realize most medium and heavy armor is actively terrible for survival as currently written.

Your absolutely wrong. Druid interacted with nature spirits I mean I feel like that is obvious. Fay are nature spirits in original lore. I don't know where your getting your information.


RazarTuk wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah, D&D was really big on pointless, arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions back before 3.0. Like class race combo restrictions and level limits. Or Clerics not being able to play with sharp objects because of a nonsensical restriction on shedding blood. Bashing some dude's skull in with a flanged mace is ok, even though it will shed a load of blood. This is one of those. Metal is fine, unless it's armor. Because reasons.
It was actually based on a popular misinterpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry that Odo wielding a mace implied that clerics couldn't wield bladed weapons.

This is actually why beards are a big thing for Orthodox. Shaving with a mace is not a sustainable practice. Although they say some monks in the desert still...

(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

I never felt Druids worked for me in D&D/PF, the Wildshape morph-melee wasn't my cup of tea, and the SNA-Pokemon-spam definitely wasn't either. I was open to the general nature-magic concept, but Druid just felt hung up on side fixations like those. A few Archetypes drew it towards more interesting territory (for me) like Ley-Line and Feyspeaker(?) but generally I felt it was better to reach towards Nature magic from other base rather than via Druid. Shaman over-all felt more in line with my interests.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:


(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

Getafix has a sickle. And a scimitar is just a big sickle. And a scythe just a sickle on a stick.

I THINK I'm joking :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Quandary wrote:


(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

Getafix has a sickle. And a scimitar is just a big sickle. And a scythe just a sickle on a stick.

I THINK I'm joking :-)

You are probably right, joking or not. The brief description of druids cutting mistletoe in the 1st-century book Natural History by Roman historian Pliny the Elder describes druids using a sickle. Thus, it is one of the few details we know about druids, so fictional druids, such as Getafix from the Asterix comics, often carried sickles. The accuracy of that detail can be debated.


pauljathome wrote:
Quandary wrote:


(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

Getafix has a sickle. And a scimitar is just a big sickle. And a scythe just a sickle on a stick.

I THINK I'm joking :-)

I think the superficial resemblance to sickles is supposed to be the reasoning for scimitars. And sickles because of the connection to harvesting herbs. It's a real stretch. But why a class very very loosely based on an ancient Celtic priesthood using a late medieval middle-eastern weapon was always going to be a stretch.


Repel Metal always felt Un-Druidic... I mean, even repelling scimitars and sickles? ;-)


Voss wrote:
I don't honestly remember much of anything about druids and fey in AD&D. Various faeries existed, but that was about it. Druids didn't care about or interact with them any more than anyone else.

I've got an old AD&D player's handbook here.

Possible relevant bits:
"Metallic armor spoils their magical powers." No more precise reason given.

"Immunity to charm spells cast by any creature basically associated with the woodlands, i.e., dryads, nixies, sylphs, etc." They didn't have "fey" as a strict concept back then.

Languages you can gain for being a druid: "centaur, dryad, elvish, faun, gnome, green dragon, hill giant, lizardman, manticore, nixie, pixie, sprite, treantish". There were way too many languages in AD&D...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The metal armor thing goes back to druids communing with fae (and we all know fae have a thing about cold iron.) After researching it that is the best reason I have found why the 1st D&D druid does not like to wear metal armor it interferes with there fae buddies and fae and nature are kind of connected etc.

I don't honestly remember much of anything about druids and fey in AD&D. Various faeries existed, but that was about it. Druids didn't care about or interact with them any more than anyone else.

The main reason for Druids to have metal armor anathema in PF2 is they're smart enough to realize most medium and heavy armor is actively terrible for survival as currently written.

Your absolutely wrong. Druid interacted with nature spirits I mean I feel like that is obvious. Fay are nature spirits in original lore. I don't know where your getting your information.

Playing 1st and 2nd for many, many years. Druids worshipped nature gods and did nature things. Doesn't mean they were obligated to or got power from fairies in any way,

For example the immunity implies an adversarial relationship, not a friendly one. And certainly not a we limit ourselves because faeries relationship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh wow, I didn't start the thread this time.

I never understood the restriction because to me, metal is completely natural. The most common thing in the universe occasionally behaves as a metal (i.e. tends to become a positive ion) in common natural processes. Frequently, organisms will build something up to maximize the use of a metal because it turns out that using metals is the best way to get a lot of stuff involved in living done (you know, like photosynthesis or breathing). Not that life would have gotten to that point if there wasn't a massive amount of metal around to protect it from whatever comes off the sun at any given moment.

And given the outsider-focused option was an ex-druid, shouldn't that be extended to other extraplanar origins e.g. the First World?


Stupid rule,

I still remember 3.0/3.5e D&D where in FR settings 95% of PC druids were of Mielikki, as she alowed her druids to wear metal armor.


Yeah, the mix and match nature of the druid Anathema in D&D always confuses me. I come from Midgard and the Dark Eye, two German RPG Systems that just have the very clear "Metal is Anathema to Druids" rule, and metal armour interferes with Arcane Magic, so Arcane Casters avoid it.
Coming to D&D and see Druids run around with Metal Scimitars was a big WTF Moment.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quandary wrote:


(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

Getafix has a sickle. And a scimitar is just a big sickle. And a scythe just a sickle on a stick.

I THINK I'm joking :-)

I think the superficial resemblance to sickles is supposed to be the reasoning for scimitars. And sickles because of the connection to harvesting herbs. It's a real stretch. But why a class very very loosely based on an ancient Celtic priesthood using a late medieval middle-eastern weapon was always going to be a stretch.

I believe it has to do with scimitars resembling the crescent moon or some-such.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quandary wrote:


(Somewhat) seriously, I also have to wonder: why scimitar specifically being OK for Druids? "Oh, curves are NATURAL".

Getafix has a sickle. And a scimitar is just a big sickle. And a scythe just a sickle on a stick.

I THINK I'm joking :-)

I think the superficial resemblance to sickles is supposed to be the reasoning for scimitars. And sickles because of the connection to harvesting herbs. It's a real stretch. But why a class very very loosely based on an ancient Celtic priesthood using a late medieval middle-eastern weapon was always going to be a stretch.

Hey, I actually saw a discussion like this on reddit a few weeks ago. Someone found that according to Gygax in an interview at ENWorld about 10 years ago, it is the sickle resemblance. A scimitar was just the first sickle-like blade to come to mind at the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I remember correctly from an old interview or something like that, it was more similar to the old Arcane spell failure.

Metal armor blocking natural energies and such from reaching the druid.


It's also been pointed out for systems that are open with respect to what can take class levels (such as PF1), that there is absolutely no problem with a Druid being (animated) metal armour, or having very clearly metallic hide.


Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The metal armor thing goes back to druids communing with fae (and we all know fae have a thing about cold iron.) After researching it that is the best reason I have found why the 1st D&D druid does not like to wear metal armor it interferes with there fae buddies and fae and nature are kind of connected etc.

I don't honestly remember much of anything about druids and fey in AD&D. Various faeries existed, but that was about it. Druids didn't care about or interact with them any more than anyone else.

The main reason for Druids to have metal armor anathema in PF2 is they're smart enough to realize most medium and heavy armor is actively terrible for survival as currently written.

Your absolutely wrong. Druid interacted with nature spirits I mean I feel like that is obvious. Fay are nature spirits in original lore. I don't know where your getting your information.

Playing 1st and 2nd for many, many years. Druids worshipped nature gods and did nature things. Doesn't mean they were obligated to or got power from fairies in any way,

For example the immunity implies an adversarial relationship, not a friendly one. And certainly not a we limit ourselves because faeries relationship.

Your missing the forest for the trees. They get there power from the same source fae do. Dae by the way in folklore are all nature spirits. Elfs faeries etc. They are not the same thing in Gaelic lore as they are in D&D. Real life druid cam first obviously.

here is a reddit page talking about it.

reddit on druid metal wearing. .

The first post shares the same knowledge I have been. If you want to skip the link here is the realavent info.

A common old belief in many cultures is that iron is a powerful ward off against supernatural beings, almost allways natural spirits such as fairies. Usually people used to hang horseshoes in the houses's doors as horseshoes were an easily available source of iron, they could be nailed above a door to prevent any unwanted, otherworldly guests.

D&D takes a lot from myths and folkloric traditions, so it makes sense that a druid keep iron away from himself keep their link with the nature pure.


A lot of stuff is leftover from the mists of gaming history. Like elves being immune to ghoul paralysis. That's leftover from miniatures games that were pre-cursor to DnD back when the 70s.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
D&D takes a lot from myths and folkloric traditions, so it makes sense that a druid keep iron away from himself keep their link with the nature pure.

In Golarion lore (and the PF1 rules) we have 'cold iron' as the thing that is harmful to fey, not regular iron. And why is a mithral chain shirt more obstructive to druidic powers than an iron helmet?


For Golarion druids I would say its probably tradition. They just grabbed the 3.5 druid and kept all the stuff. Most of the classes stuff they kept just because.

I feel like everyone knows that though? don't they? most classes are the way they are because there taken from the previous edition and modified.


So sure, if you start from the premise that metal is unnatural, it's going to be unnatural (the fact that most of the time, it isn't is a problem though). But I am going to disagree with that premise. Why was iron specifically considered to be antimagic? As far as anyone can tell, it dates back to the start of the iron age. Some country goes to war with copper weapons blessed by whatever magic they happen to have, and get curb-stomped by some other country using iron gear, because the latter's equipment is better. But rather than entertain the possibility that the iron-wielders have similar levels of magic (or better, since their tech is better in at least one aspect), the losers promptly proclaim that their opponents cheated and that the newfangled material must have removed the only effective magic in existence.

I find that assumption stupid, and I will need empirical evidence suggesting that conclusions drawn from it are valid. At the moment, all results that would suggest that cannot explain other aspects of the "reality" in which they take place.

And no, it wasn't for anything to do with the effort of extraction or environmental damage that can cause. Leather is just as bad on that front.


The assumption has always been that metal armor interferes with natural (or as it would now be called, Primal) magic. Whether this is because of the folklore of it being harmful to Fae or just because it is seen as less "natural" in some other way is irrelevant.

It isn't properly explained why actual armor is unusable, while weapons, gauntlets, helmets and the like are okay, but it isn't that hard to imagine a reason.

Perhaps Primal Magic is focused through the core of an individual, the heart and the breathing, the chest and the belly. Covering your hands and head is thus less restrictive. Or perhaps even simpler it's just a matter of how much metal. An armor set covers your entire body, even lesser armor like half-plate. Comparing this to a metal glove or helmet, and the latter isn't even close to the same amount even if you put them together.


Doesn't explain shields or this piece of armour. As for quantity, the lightest armour that includes metal is 1lb Dual-wielding flails in guantlet-clad hands is 12 lb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A long time ago I recall talking with a group of people in a local gaming shop about Druids and the restrictions for metal armor and one of the theories that was floated was:

In order for raw ore to be shaped into armor it has to be forged/worked and mankind working metals into objects was a sign of industry and cultural advancement.

As has been mentioned above old edition druids were all about the natural/untamed world and so they do not wear metal armor because it is anathema to their worldview.

Personally, I always found that to be a more compelling answer compared to
Druid: "Fey-friends hate cold iron"
Other: "But this armor is made of adamantine/mithral/Elysian silver..."
Druid: "Err...semantics! Fake news!" *Pocket sand* *Run away*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which would be fine if worked anything else caused the same problems, or if metals found natively were exempt. What is so industrial about hitting things with blunt objects?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind seeing the divided up by Druidic Order.

Animal: No animal hide.
Plant: No plant materials.
Storm: ???
Wild: No metal.

Or the opposite. Animal only wears Hire, Plant only wears plant materials, etc.


S Y wrote:

A long time ago I recall talking with a group of people in a local gaming shop about Druids and the restrictions for metal armor and one of the theories that was floated was:

In order for raw ore to be shaped into armor it has to be forged/worked and mankind working metals into objects was a sign of industry and cultural advancement.

... so what about metal weapons?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
S Y wrote:

A long time ago I recall talking with a group of people in a local gaming shop about Druids and the restrictions for metal armor and one of the theories that was floated was:

In order for raw ore to be shaped into armor it has to be forged/worked and mankind working metals into objects was a sign of industry and cultural advancement.

... so what about metal weapons?

Well you don't wear those.


Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
S Y wrote:

A long time ago I recall talking with a group of people in a local gaming shop about Druids and the restrictions for metal armor and one of the theories that was floated was:

In order for raw ore to be shaped into armor it has to be forged/worked and mankind working metals into objects was a sign of industry and cultural advancement.

... so what about metal weapons?
Well you don't wear those.

But "in order for raw ore to be shaped into armor weapons it has to be forged/worked and mankind working metals into objects was a sign of industry and cultural advancement."


Well, 'barbaric' people could probably scrape together enough metal to make a shortsword or a speartip or a sickle, but not enough to make a full suit of metal armor. The city folk could put together an army of hoplites or legionaries, while the tribal people would rush into battle 'sky-clad', or ride around in silk armour, or whatever.

This is more legend than history, of course, but this kind of thing informs the archetypes of imagined ancient druids.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Why Do Druids Not Like Metal Armor and Does It Even Matter? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes