Paul Farquhar
Legend
Me, raised Roman Catholic...
The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...
Me, raised Roman Catholic...
By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.
Let's see how silly this semantic game can be with rules lawyers. C'mon, it's fun for the whole table!
It says that a Knight's retainer "will not" follow me into a dangerous area, like a Dungeon. (PHB 136). But it doesn't say that they will EXPLODE. Therefore, they follow me into the dungeon.
It says that if a Paladin violates their oath (PHB 86), then the DM might be an oathbreaker, or might just have to abandon the class completely for another class. Lack of specificity means that there can be no penalty, therefore there is no Paladin oath.
For pacts, it says to work with the DM to determine the role of the pact (p. 106); because working with DMs removes MUH PLAYA AGENCY it therefore doesn't exist, so the patron doesn't exist.
Etc.
Look, I have some easy, simple solutions:
1. There are no Druids. They have been consigned to the place where the Paladins reside.
2. Wearing metal causes Druids to spontaneously combust. Little known fact- 95% of all spontaneous combustion cases are caused by Druids trying to wear metal armor (the other 5% are a result of gnomes wielding rapiers).
3. To paraphrase Bob Marley, if you wear metal, "No druid, no spell."
See? Simple!
Now, if you want a houserule for druids to wear metal, then knock yourself out. Sorry, " If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
Good luck! Don't explode!
Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.
Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor. It's simply that the average druid considers it to be taboo. PCs, being exceptional individuals, might not although there should arguably be in world consequences for breaking the taboo.
Similarly, the Knight's retainer won't typically go into a dungeon. However, if the Tarrasque ambushes the party at the dungeon entrance and chases them inside, it's up to the DM what happens. Maybe he's so paralyzed by fear and indecision that he dies trying to decide what to do. Maybe he high tails it into the dungeon. It's descriptive, and therefore is simply there to inform the DM of how this NPC is typically intended to be run. That's my read on it anyway.
The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...
You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"?
Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard set of classes but there is nothing wrong with customizing the game. Which is what everyone keeps saying.
Of course if you just accepted that this wouldn't be the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends ...
The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...
Maybe you and I have different standards of balance. I don't think any full caster should ave an AC over 16-17 without magic items, i just doesn't balance well.
"Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is about as clear a rule as I've seen in the book. Feel free to run it differently in your game.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. If my vegetarian nephew eats steak he is not a vegetarian. If a PC wears metal armor they are not a druid.
By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.
Sorry, " If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
Why is it that there are, largely, two groups of people in this debate.
The first sees the druid restriction, understands it for what it is, and are like, "Okay, cool, if other people disagree with it, then they can just houserule it."
The second attempts to make various arguments that UNLESS the rule is perfect, then THE RULE DOESN'T APPLY.
You should propose this to WoTC as errata.
Druid is not a weak class. Do you think the restriction has anything to do with game balance? Not in the sense that every PC has to be the same - we know that paradigm was ejected again with 5e - just in the sense that Druid becomes too powerful with metal armor.
It doesn't have to be proposed to the errata because it is already covered in the Sage Advice, which is just as official as the errata.