D&D 5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

Ristamar · Jun 20, 2019

Dausuul said:
Where I have a problem is a restriction which is presented as if it were a rule, but is not written clearly enough for an actual rule (which armors count as metal? what replacement options exist, if any? what happens if you do wear metal armor?), and when asked for clarification, the designers say "This is just a story thing, you can wear metal armor and it won't affect game balance if your DM is okay with it." Say what? Of course it affects game balance, metal armor is a lot better than non-metal armor! If druids were meant to be medium armor wearers, that ought to be spelled out in the rules and the non-metal restriction clearly presented as a non-binding story element. If not, that should also be spelled out, including details of precisely which armors are forbidden, and consequences imposed for wearing them.

The designers deliberately chose not to lay out strict restrictions and guidelines for the adjudication of Stealth, and you're expecting a treatise on what constitutes metal armor and its ill effects for one class?

Relax and consider the silver lining from the DM perspective. If a player's Druid is ignoring the lore and frequently leaning on the protection provided from metal armor, it means they're not Wildshaped and you have plenty of opportunities to do some real, meaningful damage.

generic · Jun 20, 2019

This (pseudo) rule really only exists for one reason; so that Druids don't become even more monstrously powerful. Lore justifications are rubbish, and everyone knows that they are. I'm sure that leather armor is more 'natural' than metal armor.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 20, 2019

Aebir-Toril said:
This (pseudo) rule really only exists for one reason; so that Druids don't become even more monstrously powerful. Lore justifications are rubbish, and everyone knows that they are. I'm sure that leather armor is more 'natural' than metal armor.

Tortle druids have the equivalent of built in plate armour, and, although not a bad choice for a melee druid who isn't a Moon druid, are a long way short of "monstrously powerful", even if they manage to pick up Booming Blade and/or GFB.

Psyzhran2357 · Jun 20, 2019

Oofta said:
Good grief. This argument, again? In my campaign there's a simple answer. If your PC wears metal armor, they aren't a druid. Don't like the rule? Change it if you're the DM.

I don't really care about why or what the consequences are, without a house rule to change things if you wear metal armor you can't take the druid class. End of story. Sometimes the answer is simply "no". I'm not going to justify it, argue about it, discuss pros and cons, debate whether it's really a "rule" or just a suggestion. Druids won't wear metal armor. Period.

I hope you aren't this small and closed of mind in other aspects of your life. Because I find the very principle of your refusal to even think about the possibilities of a matter absolutely morally abhorrent.

lowkey13 · Jun 20, 2019

*Deleted by user*

akr71 · Jun 20, 2019

lowkey13 said:
It's good to know that we all remember it's a game.

Yep, now let me tell you about my new character build - a gnome, dex-based, dual scimitar wielding druid-adin (or paladruid).

Oofta · Jun 20, 2019

Psyzhran2357 said:
I hope you aren't this small and closed of mind in other aspects of your life. Because I find the very principle of your refusal to even think about the possibilities of a matter absolutely morally abhorrent.

Following the rules printed in the book is "absolutely morally abhorrent"?

Don't like the rule? Change it when you're running a game.

lowkey13 · Jun 20, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Umbran · Jun 20, 2019

Psyzhran2357 said:
I hope you aren't this small and closed of mind in other aspects of your life. Because I find the very principle of your refusal to even think about the possibilities of a matter absolutely morally abhorrent.

Dude. We have only a few rules around here - one of them being that you can't go around blatantly insulting people or questioning their personal character over a difference of opinion about game rules.

Or maybe you are trying to be funny? If so... folks can't tell.

Either way - you should stick to being respectful.

Ohmyn · Jun 20, 2019

lowkey13 said:
I am not sure that you are using the terms "rule" and "edition" and "D&D" in the same way that most people do.

Allow me to introduce you to the first 25 years of the game.

I'm using them definitively. A character only "won't" do something until they do it. There's been mechanical penalties for certain actions, but never a removal of player agency to perform said actions. Wizards in every edition of the game have been able to don any armor they wish, there'd just be penalties if they didn't otherwise have the training to do so. Even if they wanted to be an immobile chunk of metal for a bit, that was their choice. Monks have always been allowed to wear armor, they'd simply suffer mechanical penalties. Paladins have always been able to break their oaths, and there have been plenty of classes representing fallen Paladins. Heck, even the Sacred Vows of 3.5's Book of Exalted Deeds could be disavowed, it just had a heavy penalty for doing so.

Druids and metal armor in 5E? Nothing's defined, neither mechanically nor in narrative. It only says they won't, not that they can't, which simply becomes incorrect as soon as one does.

Oofta said:
Good grief. This argument, again? In my campaign there's a simple answer. If your PC wears metal armor, they aren't a druid. Don't like the rule? Change it if you're the DM.

I don't really care about why or what the consequences are, without a house rule to change things if you wear metal armor you can't take the druid class. End of story.

But now you're the one making a house rule. There's no such mechanical limitation placed in the book, nor in the Sage Advice. I repeat, a character only "won't" do something until they do it. There's no rule that says the X levels of Druid on the character sheet magically go away because they disagree with one of the flimsy, undefined story elements of the class.

The PHB adds for the Monk: "As a rule, monks care little for material wealth and are driven by a desire to accomplish a greater mission than merely slaying monsters and plundering their treasure."

Is every murder hobo Monk PC not a Monk? Would you rule if they ever become greedy, or act as a standard murder hobo alongside their Fighter PCs, that they're "no longer a Monk"? What would be the mechanical basis for that, if not a house rule? Do you take their Monk levels and powers away? Because they're obviously not a Monk, as per the class's story.