|
How does the druidic prohibition against metal armor and shields interact with armors and shields that are primarily made of a non-metal but have metal components like the studs of a studded leather armor, the mail undershirt of an armored coat (both are classed as part of the Leather category) or a wooden shield with a metal shield boss or shield spikes?
Dungeons & Dragons players and Pathfinder players have had many lengthy discussions about why druids cannot wear metal armor nor wield metal shields. Real-life lore about druids said nothing, and the divine/primal magic system had nothing against metal armor either. And the answer is that when the druid class was introduced in D&D, the class said that.
This means that fringe cases are solved by their labels. If the armor is called padded armor or leather armor or hide armor, then it is not metal armor regardless of the amount of metal in it, so the druid can wear it. If the armor is called mail armor or plate armor, then it is metal armor regardless of non-metal components, and the druid cannot wear it. Likewise, a wooden shield with metal rivets and metal spikes is still a wooden shield and the druid can use it.
Yeah, unless the restriction applies to metal weapons too, then I can't justify applying the restriction to wooden shields or leather armor just because it has metal rivets.
They also could use scimitars because…..and dragon scales were always the eventual answer to substitute for metal plates.
Now I want to play a druid wearing cloth of silver or cloth of gold clothing so I can be wearing more metal than I would be if it was armor. The limitation is on armor only after all. ;)
Now I want to play a druid wearing cloth of silver or cloth of gold clothing so I can be wearing more metal than I would be if it was armor. The limitation is on armor only after all. ;)Explorer's clothes now count as armor, though. Unarmored armor, but STILL! :P
#1 it's still listed as not armor: it still says "Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes." Note it saying not armor twice. Where does it mention that it's now armor and therefor makes it so that monks wearing it no longer get their abilities?
#2 who ever mentioned Explorer's clothes? Clothing [fine] or clothing [fine high fashion] fits what I was talking about FAR better.
|
|
Now I want to play a druid wearing cloth of silver or cloth of gold clothing so I can be wearing more metal than I would be if it was armor. The limitation is on armor only after all. ;)Explorer's clothes now count as armor, though. Unarmored armor, but STILL! :P#1 it's still listed as not armor: it still says "Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes." Note it saying not armor twice. Where does it mention that it's now armor and therefor makes it so that monks wearing it no longer get their abilities?
#2 who ever mentioned Explorer's clothes? Clothing [fine] or clothing [fine high fashion] fits what I was talking about FAR better.
I was just making a joke that Explorer's Clothes is listed in the armor table as Unarmored armor. The inherent contradictory nature of that statement is funny...