Hi everyone,
I have a question for a Druid character: Is studded leather a metal armor?
I don't think there's an answer in the rules, so how would you rule it as a DM?
Generally speaking I would allow it. While the armor incorporates some metal, it is definitely not entirely metal, nor is there any metal likely touching the druid himself.
I figure we are fine with Wooden shields that probably have nails in them. Why not studs in leather?
I would allow it, the issue druids are meant to have with metal isn't about it being metal (they still use metal tools) but rather the idea that you are protected by industry/society.
This said, that should probably rule out cured leathers and such... Butttttt this is the world we live in and it was a Gygaxism so -shrugs- THAC0 for life ;) (jesting aside I really like counting down in AC and rolling under systems, but that is another story)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Studded leather armor is a Dungeons & Dragons invention based on the appearance of some styles of brigandine armor. In real brigandine armor, the studs hold metal plates in place beneath the leather, and the protection is mostly from the metal plates.
However, studded leather armor in Pathfinder emphasizes the leather:
Studded Leather: This leather armor is reinforced with metal studs and sometimes small metal plates, providing most of the flexibility of leather armor with more robust protection. [italics added by me]
Therefore, it counts as leather armor and not metal armor.
I’d say that the Studded Leather found in the CRB is a no-go for druids, but that it’s possible to make a Druid-friendly version. (Maybe it would be Uncommon?). I don’t believe you’d need to resort to special materials to do so, just replace the metal with wood or something.
Edit: seems I am in the minority on this one, but that’s fine. As a Druid player in PFS I guess I am playing it safe by avoiding it, since I don’t have a consistent GM for that character.
I believe in PF1 it was treated as being a non-metal armor. I see no reason to change that now.
I believe in PF1 it was treated as being a non-metal armor. I see no reason to change that now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can have bone or antler studs or even cerimic at higher lvls it could be glasssteel or dragon bone ect.
You can have bone or antler studs or even cerimic at higher lvls it could be glasssteel or dragon bone ect.
Yeah, I never accepted the bone argument, bone being much poorer than metal for such a role. And non-modern ceramics couldn't fill that role either.
I'd love to see some dragon teeth used though!The fact wooden shields typically have nails and often have metal bracing seems a pretty strong argument. The armor description does call out having metal plates underneath, but that's only "sometimes" so a Druid could avoid those. That does mean found studded leather may not be suitable, yet unless there's a good RPing reason, it seems unfair to rule against the hapless Druid in those cases. (Like Zon-Kuthon worshipers likely do have metal plates in theirs.)
So, for now, I've been swayed to accept Studded Leather as not metal, at least not metal enough. (Heck, leather is often depicted as having extensive metal straps.)
Even if you assumed it usually incorporated metal, there are such huge variations in reinforced armor that I think studded leather could stand in for any of them until such time as official stats are given for boned leather armor, shell-reinforced, stone-reinforced, and leather armor reinforced with tough, flexible backings (like boiled leather strips, bamboo strips, etc). But considering druids often use metal weapons, and nearly always use coins, it's not the touch of metal that's the problem. Cladding yourself in metal or carrying a metal shield violates the spirit of their oaths. So that's two reasons to say no, it's probably not "metal armor".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As stewards of the natural order, druids find affronts to nature anathema. ...
The following acts are anathema to all druids:
• Using metal armor or shields.
• Despoiling natural places.
• Teaching the Druidic language to non-druids.
I honestly cannot figure out why on Golarion metal armor and shields are anathema to druids yet other uses of metal are fine. Maybe the reason would give me a way to tell whether studded leather armor was anathema or not.
I can speculate why druids don't wear metal armor for out-of-game reasons. The Pathfinder character classes are based on mythology and fiction. Rangers are based on Aragorn and Legolas, wizards are based on Gandalf and stories by Jack Vance, fighters are based on Roland and idealized men at arms, clerics are based on idealized Crusaders, etc. The mythology of druids is weird. The real Celtic druids were pretty much witch doctors for hire. But the legends about them emphasized a mystic connection to nature, people who lived in the woods to protect it. Metal armor represents cities with smithies and forges, an industry that refines metal. A metal knife can be from trade--the America colonists traded a lot of metal knives to American Indians in exchange for pelts--but a full set of armor costs a fortune (by 1st-level standards).
Metal armor is not an affront to nature out of game. Instead, it represents cities and industry so it looks wrong on a druid who represents wilderness and surviving in the wild. A firearm would look out of place in a druid's hands, too.
Looking over the PF2 1st-level pregenerated iconics, Ezren, Sajan, and Seoni wear no armor. Lini and Lem wear padded armor. Fumbus and Merisiel wear leather armor. Harsk wears studded leather armor. Kyra wears a chain shirt. Amiri wears hide armor. Seelah wears scale mail. Valeros wears a breastplate. I don't have higher level pregens for Lini, but Merisiel's armor at 5th level is still leather despite her art showing studded leather. I suspect this is because Merisiel looks more roguish in studded leather.
Since the iconic ranger Harsk wears studded leather armor, it looks sufficiently "lives in the wild" to be worn by a druid.
I saw Druid no-metal-armor thing as being about blocking the Druid's connection with natural world via electromagnetic energies (and disrupting Druid's communion with nature is affront to nature). An individual metal item held in hand is manageable, but surrounding their body would be too blocking/overwhelming of those subtle energies. For Studded Leather, if there is enough metal to be substantive difference VS Leather, I would say there is probably enough metal to trigger this restriction. (but nails or reinforcements of wooden shields are fine, since they are not all-encompassing, even Tower Shields only uni-directional cover)
Somewhat surprised nobody has mentioned the other angle on metal armor: Shocking Grasp (or anything else penalizing metal armor). Likewise, if there is enough metal to make a difference vs non-studded Leather, it seems there is enough metal to count as metal for these, certainly any 'studs' are highly conductive thru what would otherwise be insulating leather.
I can speculate why druids don't wear metal armor for out-of-game reasons.
Main reason I can think of this : Golarion is the official world of Pahfinder and so nothing in it can really go against the rules... So, no specific rules in Golarion...
The Pathfinder character classes are based on mythology and fiction [...]
Well, first and foremost the Druid in Pathfinder is based on the Druid in AD&D... Not being able to wear metal armor is a remnant of the past... ;)
The only thing I can think of with armor is that they can't wear metal close to their skin... A bit like the Fey do not like cast Iron, being encased in iron prevent you from casting the nature magic...And since this predate the arrival of firearms and since firearms does not encase you there's no ban on firearms for druids... :)
Metal armor is not an affront to nature out of game. Instead, it represents cities and industry so it looks wrong on a druid who represents wilderness and surviving in the wild. A firearm would look out of place in a druid's hands, too.
It's not an issue of metal being "an affront to nature", it's an issue of metal "blocking" nature's magic which, at the beginning, has no relations whatsoever to "Divine Casting" at all... ;)
Edit : Usually from these really ancient rules Studded Leather is authorized for Druid if I remember well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's because Gary Gygax wrote them that way and it's stuck ever since. Yes, Pathfinder is not D&D, but, also, it is.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's because Gary Gygax wrote them that way and it's stuck ever since. Yes, Pathfinder is not D&D, but, also, it is.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
If that is the definitive source of the rule--and I think it is--then it also answers the question about studded leather: "A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it."
And it explains, "Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization." The boldface emphasis is mine.
It's because Gary Gygax wrote them that way and it's stuck ever since. Yes, Pathfinder is not D&D, but, also, it is.
(Grrr you made me go and search for my Player's Handbook to take a look... And since mine is not in English please forgive me if the traduction is not literal)
Here's the rough understanding I had from the Druid entry in the Player's Handbook :
"Druids have access to high level spell and to a lot of different weapons but to compensate they are restricted to only non metal armor or shield"...
So no "fluff" reason for that but only rules balancing reason... ;)
Funny. I was looking up this very question because of the Shocking Grasp spell.
Actually it is in the rules.
Page 276. under damaging armor.
it is listed under leather FWIW
Thank you! That settles it for me.
Aside from fact there isn't any real RAW wording distinction, I could see fair "fluff" / "immersive" rationale for Shocking Grasp and Druid rule to diverge in how they consider Studded Leather to fall in or out of their consideration of metal armor. Cralius' find on page 276 is probably the best universal ruling for now though.
Aside from fact there isn't any real RAW wording distinction, I could see fair "fluff" / "immersive" rationale for Shocking Grasp and Druid rule to diverge in how they consider Studded Leather to fall in or out of their consideration of metal armor.
But RAW Studded Leather has always been a "Leather" armor, and the wording p276 make them "Leather" armor.
Then there's no doubt that "Shocking Grasp" does not work on Studded Armor... ;)