The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.
No, it wasn't a non-answer. It was just not the kind of concrete answer you want.
It's like trying to rationalize a fashion choice. People dress poorly even if they freeze because personal choices. People wear shoes that kill their feet.
Stop trying to make the druid's choice an obvious one.
Or rather, go ahead in your own campaign. Stop trying to paint the default explanation as being objectively worse than an explanation that explains (and removes) the choice from druids.
If druids did explode in metal armor, that sure would explain why they're not wearing any.
But it would also make the choice into a non-choice.
It doesn't say that. The MM says they are animated by a "dark magic" and "sinister vitality", which is not the same thing. It says the same thing about zombies. My point is that the MM left this stuff to interpretation and this article is narrowing the possibilities for the sake of spell interaction, which is unnecessary because Dispel Magic wouldn't interact anyway, because it's not a spell.
You're welcome to change it in your game, but as the game is written, there's value in holding to your beliefs because that's what you BELIEVE IN, not because somebody's holding a gun to your head.
The point *is* that Druids choose not to wear metal armor.
A druid who violates one of the basic tenants of their faith should face consequences.
It doesn't say that. The MM says they are animated by a "dark magic" and "sinister vitality", which is not the same thing. It says the same thing about zombies. My point is that the MM left this stuff to interpretation and this article is narrowing the possibilities for the sake of spell interaction, which is unnecessary because Dispel Magic wouldn't interact anyway, because it's not a spell.
I enjoyed the bit of history and the explanation of class/story elements, but it was essentially a well worded non-answer. I would have much preferred if he had just come out and said something to the effect of "a druid wearing metal armor is unable to shapeshift or cast spells", which is fitting and conducive to everything we've seen regarding D&D druids for the last 40 years.
YOU choose to look at it that way.What concerns me is that, as written, the character's very existence, whether on a character sheet or in the world, is apparently dependent on an ongoing invariable commitment to a particular choice. A paladin to chooses to commit an evil act (depending on the edition) might lose his powers and become a different character class. A druid who chooses to wear metal armor apparently ceases to exist. Tear up the character sheet, make the PC go *poof* and disappear.
There is no free will without actual consequences, with 5e utterly fails to even acknowledge in the case of druids. (By contrast, they *do* acknowledge it for paladins, simply leaving the details up to the DM, with a subclass change as a provided option.)
Exactly! That's how free will works. You can choose to act, but you have to accept the consequences. In 5e druids lack free will because they are incapable of choosing to wear metal armor.
Exactly.Why does it have to have a mechanical effect, though? Why can't it just be a matter of wearing armor is just considered taboo, and a druid that does wear metal armor starts feeling Catholic-level guilt about it?
Why does it have to have a mechanical effect, though? Why can't it just be a matter of wearing armor is just considered taboo, and a druid that does wear metal armor starts feeling Catholic-level guilt about it?
That is a player issue, not actually a universal fact.Because otherwise roleplaying drawbacks have a tendency to be ignored.
They do. It's just not written with those words. Flaws are specifically the label they use for the negative-ish character trait that comes from your background, as compared to all of the other negative-ish character traits you might have which are just part of roleplaying the character.They should have just made the no-metal-armor restriction a Flaw: You gain an additional Flaw: "I refuse to wear metal armor or use a metal shield." Or something like that.