Is studded leather with its "close set rivets and spikes" classed as "metal" armour for druids and thus prohibited to them (as per the druid class)?
El_Condoro wrote:
Thanks. I allowed the armour for the druid but the description in the PHB does seem to indicate metal. I'll get the player to describe what his character uses to replace the metal parts and keep the AC.
Yes unless your setting applies restrictions to materials used in armor for Druids it should be rather easy to use non-metal options for any types of armor including plate using chitin-like materials and weapon and armor friendly natural materials like Darkwood.
My line of thinking is that studded leather is only 3 lb heavier than leather armour, so there can't be a lot of metal in it. Druids are not forbidden from wearing any metal, just from wearing gear predominantly made of metal.
By my reading of the table, the only armour druids can wear is padded, leather, studded leather and hide (the last is medium, the others are light).
However, in my game things like ankheg and dragonscale armour do exist. These are legal for druids to wear.
I usually assume that the visible studs in studded leather are just attachment points for internal plates of some harder material, since studs themselves wouldn't do much to help your Armour Class. The relatively small weight difference I attribute to the difference in design, since for regular leather armour the leather is the primary protection, while for studded leather, it's mostly there to hold the internal armour bits in place, requiring less bulk and density in the leather itself.
The internal plates would usually be metal, but could be made of something else if you had the armour custom-made, if you crafted it yourself, or if it was made in a place where metal was hard to get.
Historically, the D&D description of "studded leather" was literally thick-but-still-relatively-soft leather completely covered by hundreds of small metal studs (contrary to the standard fantasy illustration trope of Hank the Ranger and the twenty-three studs on his armor, because artists weren't paid enough to draw all two hundred of them) worn over a suit of padding, rather than the actual real-world-ish "brigandine" metal-plates-sandwiched-between-sheets-of-leather - which wasn't added into the game until later on... Which may or may not depending on how you decide to look at it, be a significantly smaller amount of metal than having larger metal plates held in place by a smaller number of studs.
Personally, I really can't be arsed to care whether a druid needs to have non-metal fastenings on his armor or to try to figure out exactly what percentage of an armor has to be metal or set hard limits on the exact mass/dimensions of metal an armor's allowed to contain before he can't wear it.
Rather than quibble over whether or not the druid's non-metal armor restriction requires having non-metal buckles, etc., I've always just gone with the idea that it only applies to armors that are essentially represented as being primarily or all metal, such as chainmail, scale and plate. Studded Leather has leather right in the name of it and that's good enough for me. If the character wants to add flavor to their character by saying that every last button or buckle was hand carved from ancient whatebone or grown from ironwood trees, that's awesome, but not necessary.
What if they provide the same flavour for a suit of platemail?
Saeviomagy wrote:
Mad_Jack wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
else where in the forums i attempted to make the argument that adamantine armor is not metal since 5th ed does not say it is, unlike mithril or cold iron, etc... where they explictly state they are a metal, however, becuase of long tradition of adamantine being metal in past versions of d&d my idea did not get much traction. 
but by RAW you can make the argument that a druid can wear adamantine armor. i wonder if it is only magntic metals that are an issue for druids?
celtwarrior wrote:
Sorsohka wrote: