Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

No Druid of any faith can wear any metal armor without a loss of spells while wearing the metal and then for an additional 24 hours after removing the armor. Studded leather falls in the category of forbidden armor and incurs the same penalty in the 3rd edition rules. Whether or not the Immortals of this MU* want to enforce the studded leather restriction would best be answered by one of the Immortals but there are sufficient options to studded leather available in any event. The verbatim rules from 3rd edition and the classification of armor types are posted previously in this thread. In 3rd edition many of the Druid faiths also have clerics and the clerics of those faiths are allowed the use of metal armor as any cleric.

Timaeus Valierius,
Warrior of Kelemvor.

Timaeus, you quoted from the players handbook, but heres a quote from the Forgotten Realms book I just found....

Forgotten Realms Campaign Settings, pg. 23 Druids
Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths that most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor, and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths.

It's entirely up to house rules on the matter Glim. I'd wait for Mystra or Tyr to reply on it simply because there are alot of little Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting rules that are either going to be used, not used, or just impossible to code. Everyone can spit out page numbers and quotes back and forth from multitudes of sources but in the end it is always up to the Dungeon Master (in this case Admin) to decide what rules they wish to include or exclude.

Have to remember that 3rd edition is basically promoting multiclassing as a standard, not an exception - and from what I've read several times, multiclassing was ruled out due to the loads of work to maintain balance on the mud.

If the Mielikki Druid rule was in place, you'd essentially have rangers that can cast a whole lot of spells. To me at least, on the mud it seems a little unbalanced if this was brought in.

Though, Rhelian, isnt that what mielikkan druids really are? Same as Tempus clerics are like fighters who can cast a whole bunch of spells...or clerics of Mask as thieves.

And your exactly right, Isaldur, first rule in D&D, what the DM says, goes....so the DM ruling is?

Just because you can, does not mean you should. Basic mudding guideline.

N.R.

Just to clarify, only leather or can they wear other natural armors such as chitine, bone, animal/dragon scale, hide, etc?

So, what about studded leather for Druids or Rangers?

I beleive that is what what just asked, and it was deemed that anything other than leather, some kind of hide, or padded armor should be RPed with a loss of skills. ANYTHING with metal on the armour I beleive is what they are saying...

Just to set the record straight, is this a definite NO for studded leathers? Also what about jewerly, small rings, belt buckles, (I also belive one of the items given for supplication is metal as well), shields and bows. I rely heavily on these things and incorporate them into both RP and Coded situations. I just want to know so I dont get flagged for having them later on down the road. I have been playing Rhytania as leaning towards the Faerune Campaign setting of Druids, and yes I have gotten into a discussion or two with other players both IC and OOCly, but I always back up my views with source material. I have always RPed Rhytania as a bit unorthodoxed, and angled the aspect of Mielikki's laxer oaths into her RP. I dont over do it of course and would never do anything blatantly for codewise benefits, but I think a final answer from up above will setle this once and for all.

There's not just one kind of Ranger, defending one type of terrain, thus the armor appropriate to one Ranger may not serve well the purpose of another.

If you play a Ranger who widely stays in the wilds and fights against those who encroach upon it, then I would think that leather and other natural armours are the most appropriate. If you play a Ranger who patrols the roads and paths to defend travellers and merchants from bandits and the like, or acts as the caretaker of a small village, etc., I would think a chain-wearing Ranger is acceptible.

In pure PnP D&D rules, Rangers can wear a chain shirt, as I recall, without penalty -- in 1st Ed., they could even wear platemail if they so chose (though, it looks quite odd) -- however they pay in penalties to their special abilities. If you go past light armour (studded leather, max) the Ranger loses abilities like stealth (clink, clink, clink), and tracking ability (not easy trying to spot your quarry in a great helm...) his dual wielding capability, etc. But other bonuses like your racial enemy bonuses, spells, etc. would still be intact.

As we have been making the move to D20 on FK, changes have been taking place with the ranger class dramatically. A ranger's armour proficiency has been set to light armour only. To wear heavier, you would have to spend some feat points.

From a practicality standpoint, ICly. Natural and leather armour offers many benefits to a ranger. As rangers learn the leatherworking trade, they can make armours for themselves, or repair the armours they have, as opposed to taking metal to a smith. Wearing metal of any sort, especially chain, would require painstaking maintenance for someone living in the wilds (Kregor will be the first to tell someone in metal they are going to rust away). Light armour also affords the best stealth, mobility and etc. Even the natural armours that are medium in wieght (leather and wyrm scales, hide) take a hit on your flexibility.

So I saw something about bracers.

Let me ask this, I have a quest item that is made of metal and is magical. Is it wrong of me to use a small metal protection when most of my stuff is natural?

I mean Is it wrong? Or a gift from the gods?

A single piece of metal like a bracer, doesn't constitute being decked out in plate armour. We're not talking a set of leggings or something like that. I don't see an RP issue in that.

What you MAY see is a code issue. That bracer with all your other armour may pop you over the threshold of your armour proficiency. Since we can piecemeal and layer armour, the code totals all this up.

You will know, if you start getting a bunch of "your armour hinders your attempt" messages. Then you have to decide whether the bracer is worth the feat point to train up your proficiency.

EDIT: This is to assume we're talking the RP of a ranger, as far as the bracer goes. For a druid, even a simple metal bracer would be a definite NO.

Only If the Druid was Chuantean. Mielikkian druids are allowed the same weapon and armour limitations as a ranger. Its what makes them special.