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

JonnyP71

Explorer
If you as the DM are forbidding players from doing that sort of thing, not only are you stepping over the line with regard to playing their PCs, but you are missing out on tons of great roleplaying opportunities.

I totally disagree with this - both as a DM and a player, I thoroughly dislike the 'anything goes, anyone can be anything' approach of default modern D&D, I much prefer the limitations baked into 1E/2E and prefer to play in the Greyhawk setting from that era.... and yes, if I run a 5E game, I bring those same feelings with me.

To me, a melting pot of a world is boring, and lacks any sense of character.

Thankfully, 5E still works just fine with old school limitations applied. It doesn't break if Paladins have to be LG, neither do any cracks show if you only allow Humans to be Monks, and it's still working just fine with no Dragonborn or Tieflings.

And balance? Naa, not bothered about that. I prefer to test player skill above character skill, allow 1st level PCs to adventure with level 10s, and if the party learn of the lair of an ancient Red Dragon at level 3, I'm not going to stop them going there and getting themselves killed - if they so choose.

I have no issue with the changed wording about Druid armour either... it's leather or nothing in every edition I've played, it doesn't matter one iota if the wording is 'cannot', 'forbidden' or 'will not'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ohmyn

First Post
It's simply an option that is there. Such a druid would be a heretic, and I suspect that any player who did so in my game just for a few points extra AC would have a powerful regret sooner than not. Especially since I don't make it back breakingly difficult to obtain armor made from non-traditional materials (like bulette half plate). IMC, if you want to be a metal armor wearing druid I'll allow it, but if your goal wasn't to have an extra large helping of hardship to role play against, you made the wrong choice, and I would make that clear to any player who proposed such a character to me.

However, if the player wants to be a druidic heretic and lean into all the troubles that will come of it, that sounds like it could be a potentially interesting concept so I'm not going to shut it down.

The issue I have here is what exactly could be the possible role play ramifications of that outside of pissing off other Druids? It's pretty darn rare that I see a campaign where players encounter other Druids at all, let alone regularly, and they're literally the only people that give a darn if your Druid wears metal. It's specified in the PHB that Druids hold different views, and opposing Druids may already prey on each other as a default. Playing a Druid that wears metal, or does not wear metal, is just as much at risk of consequences of not revering a natural deity as they bump into a sect that practices the Old Faith.

It's not even a factor that fey creatures would suddenly hate the Druid, because Elves, and other creatures with a natural proclivity for the Feywild, including some Fey themselves, use metal without restriction, and this never bothers them. The Nature deities themselves also don't care as they in most editions have avatars and notable worshippers that wear metal, and even grant Nature Clerics proficiency in heavy armors, all of which are metal by default.

I honestly don't see how a Druid in metal can possibly by default be at higher risk of real world consequences than a Cleric who chooses a specific deity that doesn't match the worship of any region they may enter. In fact, with such a vast variety of options of worship for Clerics, or oaths for Paladins, I'd imagine they run a higher risk of controversy among NPCs in the game world than the nature guy that decided to pick up a metal shield.
 
Last edited:

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
It's not even a factor that fey creatures would suddenly hate the Druid, because Elves, and other creatures with a natural proclivity for the Feywild, including some Fey themselves, use metal without restriction, and this never bothers them. The Nature deities themselves also don't care as they in most editions have avatars and notable worshippers that wear metal, and even grant Nature Clerics proficiency in heavy armors, all of which are metal by default.

This part depends on the campaign setting. Elves are not "Fey" with a capital f.

"Fey" in many games I've played, would take a dislike to the druid, sorta like they were a traitor (you were supposed to understand....hisssss...).

But, anecdotal preferences are anecdotal.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I totally disagree with this - both as a DM and a player, I thoroughly dislike the 'anything goes, anyone can be anything' approach of default modern D&D, I much prefer the limitations baked into 1E/2E and prefer to play in the Greyhawk setting from that era.... and yes, if I run a 5E game, I bring those same feelings with me.

To me, a melting pot of a world is boring, and lacks any sense of character.

Thankfully, 5E still works just fine with old school limitations applied. It doesn't break if Paladins have to be LG, neither do any cracks show if you only allow Humans to be Monks, and it's still working just fine with no Dragonborn or Tieflings.

And balance? Naa, not bothered about that. I prefer to test player skill above character skill, allow 1st level PCs to adventure with level 10s, and if the party learn of the lair of an ancient Red Dragon at level 3, I'm not going to stop them going there and getting themselves killed - if they so choose.

I have no issue with the changed wording about Druid armour either... it's leather or nothing in every edition I've played, it doesn't matter one iota if the wording is 'cannot', 'forbidden' or 'will not'.

So you're just going to ignore that druids in 1e were free to wear metal armor if they wanted to. All it did was block their magical abilities, like wizards. Wizards who could also put on plate mail if they felt like it in 1e.
 

Ohmyn

First Post
This part depends on the campaign setting. Elves are not "Fey" with a capital f.

"Fey" in many games I've played, would take a dislike to the druid, sorta like they were a traitor (you were supposed to understand....hisssss...).

But, anecdotal preferences are anecdotal.

I was more going off of the typical core mechanics in 5E. Sure, I know Elves aren't actual Fey, but that's why I said they had a natural proclivity for the Feywild and not that they were Fey themselves. Elvish and Sylvan share an alphabet, and almost every non-evil Fey in the Monster Manual, from Sprites to Satyrs to Treants and Dryads, have Elvish as a default language on top of their normal Sylvan. Elves are pretty commonly known for elegant chain shirts and rapiers, and I've never once heard of Fey having a dislike for any Elf that decided to wear or wield metal of any kind.

Druids by default sure don't share a language with Fey, unless they're an Elf or they're a Shepherd Druid. I've also never heard of Fey having a distaste for a Nature Cleric donning metal. I feel like the DM has to be taking pretty great strides to make a Fey creature in 5E hate the Druid wielding a metal shield, but be perfectly buddy-buddy with the Elven Nature Cleric, or the Elven Oath of the Ancients Paladin, wielding their metal shield while wearing full plate.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

First Post
I totally disagree with this - both as a DM and a player, I thoroughly dislike the 'anything goes, anyone can be anything' approach of default modern D&D, I much prefer the limitations baked into 1E/2E and prefer to play in the Greyhawk setting from that era.... and yes, if I run a 5E game, I bring those same feelings with me.

To me, a melting pot of a world is boring, and lacks any sense of character.

The point is that the player characters are the exception, not the rule. While the typical elf is remaining isolated in their little grove, the player character has ventured out into the world to seek adventure, to ward off the evils of the world, or perform whatever other task it is they set out to do. The world itself does not have to be a melting pot, but there's no reason the player character can't disagree with certain tenets of their people, or even dislike entirely the fact that the world is not a cooking pot and believes everyone should try to get along.

Just look at people of any culture and you will find there is nothing that 100% of them ever agree on. Even the Nazis surely had someone among their ranks that did not agree with the persecution of Jews, and there were white people that provided blacks safe harbor during the times of African slavery. I find it silly to say that player characters may not be unique individuals but must rather fit the DM's interpretation of what all members of that race absolutely must feel and think.


And balance? Naa, not bothered about that. I prefer to test player skill above character skill, allow 1st level PCs to adventure with level 10s, and if the party learn of the lair of an ancient Red Dragon at level 3, I'm not going to stop them going there and getting themselves killed - if they so choose.

Player skill doesn't make up for the fact that a hindered character is going to fail most of the time regardless of how good their idea is simply because they don't have the numbers to achieve a probable success rate. Balance has to be maintained in order to allow player skill to actually have room to take place.

I have no issue with the changed wording about Druid armour either... it's leather or nothing in every edition I've played, it doesn't matter one iota if the wording is 'cannot', 'forbidden' or 'will not'.

That's fine, but that's just DM authority and not a rule, which is fine. The point remains that Druids have been able to wear metal armor in nearly every edition of D&D, they've just typically had penalties associated with it. Those penalties have since been removed.
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
So you're just going to ignore that druids in 1e were free to wear metal armor if they wanted to. All it did was block their magical abilities, like wizards. Wizards who could also put on plate mail if they felt like it in 1e.

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'.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
The issue I have here is what exactly could be the possible role play ramifications of that outside of pissing off other Druids? It's pretty darn rare that I see a campaign where players encounter other Druids at all, let alone regularly, and they're literally the only people that give a darn if your Druid wears metal. It's specified in the PHB that Druids hold different views, and opposing Druids may already prey on each other as a default. Playing a Druid that wears metal, or does not wear metal, is just as much at risk of consequences of not revering a natural deity as they bump into a sect that practices the Old Faith.

It's not even a factor that fey creatures would suddenly hate the Druid, because Elves, and other creatures with a natural proclivity for the Feywild, including some Fey themselves, use metal without restriction, and this never bothers them. The Nature deities themselves also don't care as they in most editions have avatars and notable worshippers that wear metal, and even grant Nature Clerics proficiency in heavy armors, all of which are metal by default.

I honestly don't see how a Druid in metal can possibly by default be at higher risk of real world consequences than a Cleric who chooses a specific deity that doesn't match the worship of any region they may enter. In fact, with such a vast variety of options of worship for Clerics, or oaths for Paladins, I'd imagine they run a higher risk of controversy among NPCs in the game world than the nature guy that decided to pick up a metal shield.

IMC, druids worship the primal forces. A nature God is a humanized embodiment of one or more of those forces. It's an important distinction.

For starters, if I have a druid player I tend to throw in other druids and the like for them to interact with (and get a chance to utilize the druidic language). In addition, much like celestials may be favorably inclined towards a cleric or paladin of similar ethos, fey and other sylvan creatures will be favorably inclined towards a druid by default. However, a druid who wears metal armor won't benefit from that favor. In fact, such people and creatures will be distrustful of a heretical druid by default.

Sure, it won't impact a druid in the same arena as a cleric. It will impact a druid where they would normally shine brightest. The wild and untamed areas of the world.
 

Ohmyn

First Post
IMC, druids worship the primal forces. A nature God is a humanized embodiment of one or more of those forces. It's an important distinction.

For starters, if I have a druid player I tend to throw in other druids and the like for them to interact with (and get a chance to utilize the druidic language). In addition, much like celestials may be favorably inclined towards a cleric or paladin of similar ethos, fey and other sylvan creatures will be favorably inclined towards a druid by default. However, a druid who wears metal armor won't benefit from that favor. In fact, such people and creatures will be distrustful of a heretical druid by default.

Sure, it won't impact a druid in the same arena as a cleric. It will impact a druid where they would normally shine brightest. The wild and untamed areas of the world.

That's fair. I never assume campaign conditions, and in general discussion only go based on what the rules say as written unless given further context. On that note, I go by the options listed for players in the PHB, which for Druids says: "Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity. Many druids pursue a mystic spirituality of transcendent union with nature rather than devotion to a divine entity, while others serve gods of wild nature, animals, or elemental forces." The latter option here makes it clear that some Druids are simply Clerics that essentially belong to circles as opposed to temples or churches. This rather fits with the idea that they were a subclass of Cleric originally, and if a DM already has allowed such options for the players, that's when it seems to get out of the ordinary that suddenly Fey would hate them for such an arbitrary reason. If I had a party with an Elven Druid, an Elven Nature Cleric, and an Elven Oath of the Ancients Paladin (very possible given that I've been in many campaigns where the party likes to work with a theme), all wrapped in plate and shields, but Dryads come from all over the land to attack the Druid, it would feel quite off-putting.

Now if a DM already rules preemptively that Druids in their campaign can only be the force of nature option and that no Druids gain their power from a nature deity, then I'd be okay with it, although I would still bring up in 5E that it's not against the rules to do so, which it seems you would be understanding of. If they didn't care about that, then fine, as it's ultimately their call. My particular problem though is that most DMs, at least in my experience, don't have the lore of Druids in their world thought out to any such degree, and only have some programmed hatred of Druids possibly wearing metal. For this reason they jump straight to thinking about how to screw over the player if they make the choice, if not outright treating it as an impossible course of action, regardless of what the rules are. Instead of having a world where the Druid has potential consequences, they fabricate a myriad of penalties to target that player simply because they don't like their choice. This is especially problematic to me because it stretches as far as official AL tables, who I feel are not interpreting the rule properly.

Druids seem to be the only ones still getting this treatment on such a large scale at tables playing the latest edition. 5E is made to enable players to add as much flair as they want, and DMs are typically very lenient about them bypassing fluff elements of the general story of their class, but they freak out at the idea of a Druid disregarding a single taboo that has no mechanical implications in the system. I don't see the same DMs upset at Clerics for wielding sharp weapons, but I do see them feeling the need to nerf or remove Druid spells on the basis that they're more powerful than the Cleric alternatives. More powerful spells was a proclaimed intent of their original designs, which was said to be balanced in exchange for their lack of metal armor, so it feels rather hypocritical. Overall people only care about Sage Advice when it hurts Druids, but discard it when it helps them. I don't see anyone upset that Clerics now have access to a wider weapon selection than Druids, which also goes against the original designs, but they flip out at the idea that a Druid may not suffer penalties anymore for wearing the same armor as a Cleric, who may literally get their power from the worship of the exact same deity the Druid worships.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

First Post
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'.

"The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

You're omitting the important part where it specifies why they can't use it. They could still put it on, there was just preset conditions as to what would happen, which would cause it to play out like this at any reasonable table:

DM: "You found a breastplate."
Druid: "I put it on. What happens?"
DM: "You're a Druid, and it's metal, so you lose access to all of your magic. You also lack the ability to properly use it, so you gain no armor benefits."
Druid: "Okay...I take it off."

The same was true of Magic Users. Never did they just say they couldn't wear any type of armor or wield any type of weapon without saying why that was the case. Magic Users didn't have the martial training required to use armor, so even if they made the choice to put it on, any reasonable DM easily knew they lacked the training to get any bonus out of it, and that it simply added to their encumbrance with no benefit. There was not some magical ward that prevented the armor from being put on by a Magic User. A Magic User could carry a shield, they simply couldn't use a shield.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top