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

JonnyP71 said:

Quoting the 1E PHB "... but they do suffer somewhat from their inability to wear protective armour of metal.." also "... druids are unable to use any armour or shields other than leather armour and wooden shields.."

Then bring in the training rules, which ramped up the cost of training for play not pertaining to the class. It did more than just 'block their magical abilities'.

Click to expand...

If you are going to make that claim, you will need to back it up. I already quoted the 1e PHB as telling us that they can wear armor. I'll quote it again since you have now both ignored it, and then cut it out of your quotes.

"...unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

Do you see the bolded and now underlined portion? I hope so. That portion means that druids can in fact, and it is a fact, put on metal armor. Otherwise druids would be completely unaware that it affects their casting AND Gygax would not have bothered to tell players that it did so. That warning means that druids can put on metal armor, but it keeps them from casting and using their abilities.

Further, there's not one roleplaying reason given for why druids would be unable to wear metal armor, other than the loss of their magical powers.

I have backed up my claim. Can you back yours up?

All the theory about what makes a druid aside, the rule is poorly implemented on a mechanical basis:

It is only a qualification in "proficiencies" which is the wrong place. It's not about proficiencies, but (apparently) about a druid's beliefs.

The stipulation was included for legacy reasons, without much thought. We know that because:
* the wording does not make clear which armors are included;
* druids are proficient in metal armors but choose not to wear them (rather than simply having proficiency in hide);
* there is no provision for wooden shields.

As a player, I find this rule rubs me the wrong way, and so I have taken Magic Initiate and get Mage Armor, or be a Lizardfolk and have natural armor (a level as Dragon sorcerer would also work). I think it's a terrible rule, but I like playing RAW, and so I have found workarounds.

As a DM, my houserule is that Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, and Hide, but if you have proficiency from some other source (being a mountain dwarf, a level of Fighter), then you can use metal armor no problem.

Kobold Stew said:

All the theory about what makes a druid aside, the rule is poorly implemented on a mechanical basis:

It is only a qualification in "proficiencies" which is the wrong place. It's not about proficiencies, but (apparently) about a druid's beliefs.

Click to expand...

To be a bit more accurate, it's not just "apparently" about their beliefs, but RAW it's 100% about their beliefs. That is clarified in the Sage Advice. It is inaccurate to interpret it any other way because the developer confirmed it so.

Kobold Stew said:

The stipulation was included for legacy reasons, without much thought. We know that because:
* the wording does not make clear which armors are included;

Click to expand...

While true, I would like to add a note for all the naysayers that studded leather is 100% confirmed by the Sage Advice to qualify as not metal armor for the purpose of this belief. This does help support the idea that RAW, it's not armor containing metal, but armor made of metal. Even leather armor that is found would be likely to have metal buckles, as would wooden shields.

Kobold Stew said:

* druids are proficient in metal armors but choose not to wear them (rather than simply having proficiency in hide);

Click to expand...

This is true. It has been explicitly stated in the Sage Advice that nothing in the game system stops a Druid from wearing metal armor so long as they do not bypass their proficiency.

Kobold Stew said:

* there is no provision for wooden shields.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is silly. Apparently all shields weigh the same amount and provide the same protection no matter what they're made of. Druids are apparently the only mechanical reason wooden shields exist anymore.

Kobold Stew said:

As a player, I find this rule rubs me the wrong way, and so I have taken Magic Initiate and get Mage Armor, or be a Lizardfolk and have natural armor (a level as Dragon sorcerer would also work). I think it's a terrible rule, but I like playing RAW, and so I have found workarounds.

Click to expand...

Well if you factor in the clarification of the game developer and we don't just guess the correct interpretation based on what the PHB says, as per RAW you could simply put on some metal armor. Nothing prohibits you from doing so, except of course if a DM decides otherwise, but that's true of everything.

Kobold Stew said:

As a DM, my houserule is that Druids are proficient with Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, and Hide, but if you have proficiency from some other source (being a mountain dwarf, a level of Fighter), then you can use metal armor no problem.

Click to expand...

That's fair, but I would like to point out that it's a house rule to patch up what is already a house rule, since based on the developer's clarification there's nothing that requires fixing.

Here I thought I was supporting you.

Ohmyn said:

To be a bit more accurate, it's not just "apparently" about their beliefs, but RAW it's 100% about their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Which is what I said. I used brackets since, as you know, no other belief system is explained only in the proficiencies section of a class.

That is clarified in the Sage Advice.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with my point about it being sloppily implemented. If it requires an after-the-fact, internet-only correction (not errata), then it's not a rule.

It is inaccurate to interpret it any other way because the developer confirmed it so.

Click to expand...

Here we will disagree.

<snip>

Well if you factor in the clarification of the game developer and we don't just guess the correct interpretation based on what the PHB says, as per RAW you could simply put on some metal armor. Nothing prohibits you from doing so, except

Click to expand...

my self-respect.

Kobold Stew said:

Here I thought I was supporting you.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I was simply adding further points that I felt appropriate to add.

Kobold Stew said:

Which is what I said. I used brackets since, as you know, no other belief system is explained only in the proficiencies section of a class.

Click to expand...

For example, I wasn't certain of what was being implied with the parenthesis. I thought maybe the bracket was because there is more than one way to interpret what the PHB says, so I felt like clarifying that the Sage Advice confirms which interpretation is official.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to add a note. Let's not give them too much credit here. They didn't explain the belief system in the proficiencies section. They did us even worse. They didn't explain it at all, but rather added a small footnote in the proficiencies section.

Kobold Stew said:

This has nothing to do with my point about it being sloppily implemented. If it requires an after-the-fact, internet-only correction (not errata), then it's not a rule.

Click to expand...

Actually, Sage Advice is not a correction. Errata are official corrections. Sage Advice is official clarification of the current rules as written. WotC states in the compendium that they are the official rules. They're every bit as binding in a fully RAW setting as errata. Or rather they should be, but it seems it's been only since 2018 that WotC has added the note about the Sage Advice being official, and AL hasn't updated their rules since March of 2017, so they still claim it as RAI.

Aebir-Toril said:

As a Druid player myself, I must admit that the Druid is pretty weak as it is. In an ideal D&D of my design (ideal for me anyway), Clerics and Druids would not be frontliners. My point was not that Druids should not be able to wear metal armor under flavor rules, but should remain non-frontline, while clerics should be nerfed.

Click to expand...

You are getting into the "doesn't feel like D&D territory" there. Clerics have always been heavily armoured since the class was first invented. Squishy healbots are the product of MMOs and do not belong in D&D - at least not with the name "cleric" attached to them.

I believe in giving player the choice of how they play their character, front line back line it's up to them. (they may not be very effective as front liners, I can tell you from experience (and theorycrafting*) that an AC of 17 is not enough to last long on the front lines, and druids' best combat spells require concentration, but players should be allowed to try).


*enemies have an attack bonus of at least +2. Such basic enemies will hit AC 17 around 25% of the time. They would hit AC 12 about 50% or the time, so AC 17 reduces incoming damage (from low level enemies) by about a half. Compare that to Full Plate And shield AC 20. The basic low level monster will hit about 10% of the time, so average damage is reduced by 80%. As the enemies get more powerful the difference becomes greater.

Kobold Stew said:

* the wording does not make clear which armors are included;

Click to expand...

Actually, the rules allow armour (and weapons) to be made of various materials. They don't specify what is made out of what because there is no hard and fast answer.

You might find it helpful to look at 3rd edition's more detailed crafting rules if you need a hard and fast ruling about what can be made from what, rather than leaving it to the DM's judgment.

Maxperson said:

If you are going to make that claim, you will need to back it up. I already quoted the 1e PHB as telling us that they can wear armor. I'll quote it again since you have now both ignored it, and then cut it out of your quotes.

"...unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

Do you see the bolded and now underlined portion? I hope so. That portion means that druids can in fact, and it is a fact, put on metal armor. Otherwise druids would be completely unaware that it affects their casting AND Gygax would not have bothered to tell players that it did so. That warning means that druids can put on metal armor, but it keeps them from casting and using their abilities.

Further, there's not one roleplaying reason given for why druids would be unable to wear metal armor, other than the loss of their magical powers.

I have backed up my claim. Can you back yours up?

Click to expand...

Read the bit in the DMG about training times and costs for the added penalty of non-class-like behaviour.

The Druid part in the PHB twice says they cannot wear metal. On one occasion they say it is because it ruins their magic. Where does it say "They can put metal armour on, just not cast spells in it?". Nowhere.

In 2E AD&D it says metal armour is 'forbidden' - it never clarifies by whom, to me that doesn't matter. Forbidden simply means 'no', 'cannot', 'never'.

The RAI is very very clear to me, I'm not a rules lawyer who pores over every word trying to find a loophole. If something says 'no metal armour' twice the reason does not matter, the statement does not need to be clarified. One of my first rules at the table is 'no player is allowed to even look for a loophole, no RAW arguments, none whatsoever'. If something is unclear mention to me out of session, I make a decision, player does not argue. But this 'Druid - metal' issue is not unclear.

Muddy the water with Bards and Rangers, both can wear metal armour, both cast Druidic spells in 1E. If you are using implied meanings for your arguments, this fact hints that it is MORE than just 'metal armour ruining Druidic spells'.

We can argue forever on the implied meaning of sentences, but find me something that clearly and positively states, in 1e, 2e, or 5e that a Druid CAN CHOOSE to put on metal armour if they wish, but it will just adversely affect spellcasting, and I'll change my mind... every statement says 'cannot, forbidden, will not'

Acording to 1st edition druids cannot be any alignment other than Neutral. Rules change.

The thing to remember is D&D is a story telling game. Things have to make sense in terms of the story. I I things have to happen for a reason, not just "because it says so in the rules". If a player says "I fly across the chasm" the DM says "you can't, because you have no abilities that enable you to fly". If a player says "I put on the metal gauntlet" it's not enough to say "you can't, because the rules say so". You need to be able to narrate what happens when the player tries to put it on. Maybe a force field pushes it away, maybe god strikes them down with lightning, or whatever, but something has to happen when they try it, otherwise you are playing a board game not a role playing game, and suspension of disbelief is destroyed.

And you have to deal with edge cases. What happens when they wear a non-armour robe that is sewn with gold thread? What happens when they wear a metal ring? What happens when they wear a lot of metal rings linked together?

JonnyP71 said:

Read the bit in the DMG about training times and costs for the added penalty of non-class-like behaviour.

Click to expand...

I'd say the fact that there is a section that explains penalties for non-class-like behavior further shows that characters can act outside the behavior designated for their class.

JonnyP71 said:

The Druid part in the PHB twice says they cannot wear metal. On one occasion they say it is because it ruins their magic. Where does it say "They can put metal armour on, just not cast spells in it?". Nowhere.

Click to expand...

It says it right in common sense. What happens if they put on metal armor? What happens if someone else knocks them out and they wake up covered in metal armor? Do they explode? Does the universe fold into itself because the impossible has happened? Hopefully their universe has paradox protection.

Same thing applies with a Magic User picking up a shield. Does it fly to the other side of the universe in order to avoid the Magic User's grasp? Or does the Magic User simply pick it up and carry it away, and if attempting to utilize it, prove inefficient in its use due to their lack of martial training? The purpose of saying why they can't use it is to give the DM guidance as to what would happen if they tried. This is a role playing game, not a video game where you get a red X when hovering an incompatible item over a character.

JonnyP71 said:

In 2E AD&D it says metal armour is 'forbidden' - it never clarifies by whom, to me that doesn't matter. Forbidden simply means 'no', 'cannot', 'never'.

Click to expand...

Sure, and nobody has ever attempted to do that which is forbidden in the history of ever.

JonnyP71 said:

We can argue forever on the implied meaning of sentences, but find me something that clearly and positively states, in 1e, 2e, or 5e that a Druid CAN CHOOSE to put on metal armour if they wish, but it will just adversely affect spellcasting, and I'll change my mind... every statement says 'cannot, forbidden, will not'

Click to expand...

I can't find that for 5E, because the official clarification says there's no adverse effect on their spellcasting if they did it, but I can find where it is clearly verified that Druids don't lack the ability to wear metal armor, and that nothing in the game system prevents them from doing so as long as they adhere to their proficiencies. Sounds a lot like there's no reason they can't make the choice if they feel it appropriate, especially since it's just a taboo and doesn't carry mechanical penalties like in most previous editions.