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

Oofta said:

I simply don't see the wiggle room other people read into it. They "will not" wear metal armor. Seems pretty darn clear to me.

This is getting repetitive: if you don't like the rule ignore it when you're DM.

Click to expand...

I don't see much wiggle room with a paladin oath that says "don't lie or cheat" and yet people seem to think that them using the deception skill is fine.

cbwjm said:

I don't see much wiggle room with a paladin oath that says "don't lie or cheat" and yet people seem to think that them using the deception skill is fine.

Click to expand...

Some people allow druids to wear metal armor. I don't see the point.

Oofta said:

Some people allow druids to wear metal armor. I don't see the point.

Click to expand...

I guess for me the question is, what happens if they do wear metal armour? The answer is: absolutely nothing. 5e isn't like past editions where a druid character loses access to spellcasting and supernatural abilities if they go and start wearing metal armour. If there had been some kind of rule that metal armour had some sort of penalty if worn, like if they wear metal armour they can't wildshape, then people might be more accepting but instead it is a weird legacy suggestion that, in my opinion, doesn't really fit in well with 5e.

cbwjm said:

I guess for me the question is, what happens if they do wear metal armour? The answer is: absolutely nothing. 5e isn't like past editions where a druid character loses access to spellcasting and supernatural abilities if they go and start wearing metal armour. If there had been some kind of rule that metal armour had some sort of penalty if worn, like if they wear metal armour they can't wildshape, then people might be more accepting but instead it is a weird legacy suggestion that, in my opinion, doesn't really fit in well with 5e.

Click to expand...

The situation won't come up because they won't wear metal armor. Might as well ask what happens if that champion fighter shapeshifts into a bear.

Unless of course you've chosen to change the rule in your campaign.

1. A rule without justification is a toothless rule.
2. A rule without justification is a stupid rule.
3. A rule that exists only to reinforce tradition and status quo without justification is a malign rule.
4. Please parse the grammatical differences between "will not" and "can not" and "should not".

Ohmyn said:

5E does not do that for the Druid. 5E says they "won't" wear metal armor without any explanation given, and then the Sage Advice says it's a story restriction and not a mechanical one, but gives no explanation as to how it's a story restriction.

Click to expand...

I think they dont explain how its a story restriction, because story restrictions are up to the DM and players.

Oofta said:

When a player decided to play a champion fighter they decided their PC was not going to cast spells. When they chose to play a druid the decided their PC was not going to wear metal armor.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The Champion Fighter can still aspire to cast magic, can still take Magic Initiate, and can even jump into battle and try to replicate their Wizard's casting. They'll fail, but it's fully up to the character if they want to try. They're not going to explode (unless the DM wants to rule that their failed emulation leads to the casting of a failed Fireball and blow themselves up).

Someone that chooses to play a Druid does not necessarily choose not to wear metal armor. At most it's a tenet, and one that has no penalty for breaking. Applying a penalty would be a house rule, because the Sage Advice is official material, and explicitly states there is nothing within the game rules stopping the Druid from wearing the armor besides personal choice. If that Druid makes a contrary decision, there is nothing stopping them except a DM applying a house rule, one which has no basis for application, unlike rules such as with the Paladin's oaths.

Oofta said:

A DM can always set up a situation the PCs can't win, just like they can always set up alternatives. It doesn't matter if that situation is a group of 1st level characters fighting a tarrasque, the only possible way to get out of a situation is for the champion fighter to cast teleport or the druid wearing metal armor. It's a DM choice to **** over the player because of their chosen class and restrictions.

Click to expand...

And the point is, a character having to conflict their ideals against the situation in front of them is not a "no-win" situation. It's a conflict of interests for the character that forces them to weight cost versus outcome, but one they ultimately get to decide, and is not something that literally prohibits them from participating. A Paladin of Devotion opposes lying, but they can do it if they think it's the right course of action. Putting a Paladin of Devotion into a situation where lying will save many lives, or a Druid into a situation where putting on a suit of armor will complete their mission, is not comparable to expecting a Fighter to cast a spell they don't have access to.

Oofta said:

All rules are optional. If you want druids in your campaign to wear metal armor, change the rule. I choose to follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Considering Sage Advice is as official as the PHB, it's not a change in the rule to say Druids can wear metal. It is stated quite clearly that nothing stops them from doing it except personal choice. As soon as that choice changes, they're now wearing metal and nothing happens. Contrary to popular belief, they are quite clear in stating they do in fact not explode.

5ekyu said:

Uhhh... You are aware that those blurbs tend to list many different types in those descriptions? So, say, for instance the line about how critical the god is and the not follow specific divine arent at odds, just different options, right?

Click to expand...

The blurbs often do give varying options, but the ones I listed do not. They are direct and to the point, and do not offer varying opinions. For example, the Monk description explicitly states that those who leave their cloister take their work seriously. It doesn't say they usually take it seriously, or that they typically take it seriously, it says they take it seriously. When it says they care little for material wealth and are driven by a greater mission, it doesn't say they usually are, it just says that as a rule, they are.

Nobody enforces these, however, as they are just story elements of the class and do not inflict any mechanical restrictions if not followed. The Sage Advice says that the Druid tenet is the same way, but people ignore this because of where it appears one block later in the class's description.

5ekyu said:

See at this point it feels more like "hostile reading" looking for how it can be misconstrued instead of what it means.

Click to expand...

It's easy to misconstrue something when there's no explanation given.

5ekyu said:

As for devotion psladins, again, deception as a skill is not just for lying. Its also about hiding one's intent. So a high deception character might never lie but have a poker fsce from hell.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's not just for lying. A Devotion Paladin can lie with Deception. Nothing stops them from doing it at any point in time, and if they do, they're still a Paladin of Devotion. Now in this specific case there is a lore blurb that tells the DM what they should consider doing if a player chooses to ignore their tenet, so it's not a house rule to enforce punishments that match with what is given. Druids, however, are explicitly stated in Sage Advice to have no such restrictions or punishments, because there is nothing within the game system preventing them from wearing metal armor.

Also, they don't need to be trained in the Deception skill to use it. Skills can be used untrained, you just won't get the proficiency bonus.

Oofta said:

I simply don't see the wiggle room other people read into it. They "will not" wear metal armor. Seems pretty darn clear to me.

Click to expand...

The wiggle room is because "will not" is not the same as "can't". Sage Advice is official. It was asked of them what happens when a Druid wears metal armor, because there was no mention of them being unable to, merely that it's a personal choice. They said nothing prevents them from doing so. Since the official rule is that nothing in the game system that prevents them from wearing metal armor, there is nothing that prevents a Druid handed a metal armor from being convinced, either by current circumstance or a persuasive party member, to put it on. Any punishment granted by the decision is fully fabricated by the DM, and is not built into the rules, so I and many others fail to see how it's an official rule that they can't do it.

Oofta said:

The situation won't come up because they won't wear metal armor. Might as well ask what happens if that champion fighter shapeshifts into a bear.

Unless of course you've chosen to change the rule in your campaign.

Click to expand...

And what if an NPC, or a trickster player, decides to cast Suggestion on the Druid and tell them to put on a metal breastplate? Do they explode? No, because the Sage Advice says nothing happens if they do, and that nothing stops them from doing it.

Want to know what happens if that Champion Fighter shapeshifts into a bear? Cast Polymorph on them. Barring that, it's not a comparable argument, because you're comparing a physical limitation to a player choice. The Champion Fighter can't turn into a bear because they lack the ability, but a Druid can wear metal armor because they possess the ability.

Psyzhran2357 said:

1. A rule without justification is a toothless rule.
2. A rule without justification is a stupid rule.
3. A rule that exists only to reinforce tradition and status quo without justification is a malign rule.
4. Please parse the grammatical differences between "will not" and "can not" and "should not".

Click to expand...

1-3 are subjective, but 4 is easy: "will not" is a statement not the orientation of desire (the vegetarian will not eat meat, the Druid will not wear metal armor), "can not" denotes capacity (the cow cannot eat meat, the Druid cannot wear Heavy Armor and get AC from it), and "should not" denotes restrictions that can be ignired and might be deaireable but ought to be headed (the celiac should not eat delicious bread, the the Wizard shouldn't engage in sword fights).