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

Ohmyn · Jun 23, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
And you have to deal with edge cases. What happens when they wear a non-armour robe that is sewn with gold thread?

This reminded me of a point that's always bugged me about the explanation of Druids not liking metal because they prefer more "natural" options. Gold forms in nature without any human intervention. So does silver, copper, and platinum. You'll never find leather in nature. It has to be created artificially. Shouldn't they be fine with armor made from silver? Sounds like Druids are super dumb about what "natural" means.

JonnyP71 · Jun 23, 2019

It all depends on whether you as DM place value in the lore and traditions of D&D. The 5E book is quite clear, they 'will not'. The Sage Advice is similarly clear - it's a 'taboo'.

It clearly looks like most of you here do not value the intended themes of certain classes, and if you're coming from that mindset it's clear we can never agree.

I do. I also insist my players accept those themes. To veer away from them feels sacrilegious, like adding Cthulhu mythos to Middle Earth... No, just, no.

Ohmyn · Jun 23, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
It all depends on whether you as DM place value in the lore and traditions of D&D. The 5E book is quite clear, they 'will not'. The Sage Advice is similarly clear - it's a 'taboo'.

It clearly looks like most of you here do not value the intended themes of certain classes, and if you're coming from that mindset it's clear we can never agree.

I do. I also insist my players accept those themes. To veer away from them feels sacrilegious, like adding Cthulhu mythos to Middle Earth... No, just, no.

The themes have drastically changed between editions. Clerics used to only use blunt weapons whereas Druid had a wider selection of weapons. Druids are now limited, Clerics now have all simple weapons, and through domains can get all martial weapons as well. Dwarves used to be completely incapable of magic, now their WIS variant is a trademark divine caster. Paladins used to be only lawful good, and could only be humans, but now they can be of any alignment or race. Paladins used to require penance from a high level Cleric if they so much as committed an unlawful act, but now they can swear by a variety of oaths, even swearing to be little more than a neutral aligned slayer of all those they deem to be wicked. Druids used to only be true neutral, and could only be worshipers of nature, but now they can be of any alignment and can gain their powers from worship of a deity, just as standard Clerics do. I could go on all day about the vast differences the races and classes all have versus their original themes. Nearly every class has had their inhibiting restrictions lifted, or dramatically loosened. I don't see why people are so hung up on the possibility that the Druid has also changed alongside every other class over the years.

In 1E Druids did not wear metal armor because it inhibited their magic. In 2E it was a taboo. In 3E it nullified their magic until removed, and then for 24 hours after. In 4E it had no penalties or taboo, they simply weren't proficient in it. By default this gave them a -2 to attack rolls and Reflex defense, just as anyone else suffered from lack of proficiency. If they somehow gained proficiency, there was no penalty. In 5E it's back to being a taboo, but is clarified to have no penalty for doing so. 4E released in 2008, and the PHB2 with the Druid released in Q1 2009. The Druid has not had any mechanical limitations from metal armor in literally over a decade now. I don't see why everything else is allowed to change, but the Druid must always stay the same.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 23, 2019

Ohmyn said:
This reminded me of a point that's always bugged me about the explanation of Druids not liking metal because they prefer more "natural" options. Gold forms in nature without any human intervention. So does silver, copper, and platinum. You'll never find leather in nature. It has to be created artificially. Shouldn't they be fine with armor made from silver? Sounds like Druids are super dumb about what "natural" means.

And if you look at druids in history and myth, they are keen on jewellery, an golden jewellery in particular. Torcs (a twisted metal (copper, bronze or gold) neck ornament) are particularly associated with druids.

But religious rules don't have to make sense. The 1st edition cleric was required* to use blunt weapons on the basis that they where based on crusader priests who where forbidden to shed blood. Now, if you hit someone over the head with a mace the reality is there will be an awful lot of blood, but in 1st edition, and in history, it was the thought that counted, not the reality.

*1st edition did cover what happened if a cleric ignored the rule and picked up a sword anyway - they had a non-proficiency penalty on the to-hit role.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 23, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
It clearly looks like most of you here do not value the intended themes of certain classes,

A dragonmarked race gives you a very specific set of traits. However, you can also explain your class abilities as being a result of your exceptional connection to your dragonmark:

If you’re playing a bard with the Mark of Shadow, you could say that your illusion spells are drawn from your mark. If you’re a halfling bard with the Mark of Healing, you could describe your mark as the source of your healing magic.

As a life cleric with the Mark of Healing, you’re able to use your mark to channel positive energy and perform remarkable feats of healing. You could combine this with religious faith or you could say that the mark alone is the source of your divine magic.

If you’re a warlock with an aberrant dragonmark, you could say that the mark itself is your fiendish patron and the source of your arcane powers. You don’t fully understand the nature of your mark, but you know that it’s growing stronger and you’re afraid you might lose control of it.

-Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron

Fanaelialae · Jun 23, 2019

Ohmyn said:
This reminded me of a point that's always bugged me about the explanation of Druids not liking metal because they prefer more "natural" options. Gold forms in nature without any human intervention. So does silver, copper, and platinum. You'll never find leather in nature. It has to be created artificially. Shouldn't they be fine with armor made from silver? Sounds like Druids are super dumb about what "natural" means.

To me it's the fact that extracting and refining significant enough quantities of metal to fashion armor isn't easy. It reeks of civilization.

Leather, by comparison, is fairly easy to fashion. While I'm not a hunter myself, I have it on good authority from a friend of mine who is that basically all you need to tan a deer hide is the deer's brain. (But please keep in mind that there can be prions in the brain that can lead to death if someone isn't careful when using this method, so he also told me that it's not something he'd recommend to anyone in the modern day.)

IMO, it's not so much about metal being bad, since druids can use metal tools, as what armor represents which is civilization. Uncivilized tribes are capable of fashioning leather, but armor made of metal would be largely beyond their means.

Ohmyn said:
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.

I wanted to clarify, since my previous post was a bit rushed (we were in the middle of a game session but had paused to grab some dinner).

A druid IMC can worship and serve a god, however it's somewhat like a fighter who serves a god. Unlike a nature cleric, whose power flows from their god, a druids power flows from the primal forces that the god embodies.

It's like a rushing mountain stream that feeds into a calm lake. It's the same water essentially, but the druid is drinking from the stream whereas the cleric drinks from the lake. The druid is closer to the source.

I see what you mean about the PHB saying that druids can gain their magic from a nature deity. That's a bit strange to me, in that why is the druid distinct from the nature cleric when their power comes from the same source. I suppose if a druid player wanted to gain their power from a nature deity, I would have them worship the old aspect of the god, whereas the nature clerics would worship the newer, more humanized face of the deity. Sort of like how the Greek primordial deity Gaia became the goddess Terra in the Roman pantheon.

I wouldn't have dryads coming out of the woodwork to attack the party you've described (unless for some reason the dryads were hyper-aggressive and inclined to attack anyone they felt distrustful of). However, with most druids the dryads would be favorably inclined. Being fey, the dryads are closer to the primal source than most, and they can sense a kinship of sorts with the druid. Think of it as a reaction roll that defaults to a favorable result. In the case of a metal armored druid however, it's like seeing someone you recognize as a soldier for your side wearing the enemy's colors. Automatic unfavorable reaction. They won't necessarily attack, unless it's in their nature to do so, but they certainly aren't likely to help the druid either. As for the cleric and the paladin, that's pretty much just a normal reaction roll. Despite their relationship with nature, they aren't as close to the primal as either the dryad or the druid. They basically have a foot in each world, essentially a serving as intermediaries between the primal and civilized worlds. Basically, the dryad will default to assuming that a non-metal wearing druid is on her side, but she's going to be less sure about the other two. Maybe they'll choose her side or maybe they'll favor the townsfolk. Obviously, this all precludes pre-existing reputations and relationships.

But at the end of the day, I don't make it too hard to create armor made from alternate materials, and I don't recall ever having had a DM who did so either, which makes it largely a moot point. It usually involves a mini quest to track down a craftsman and/or a creature with a sufficiently tough hide. Plenty of times though, the PCs come across a proper creature simply as part of their adventures. If there is a craftsman in the party, they might not even need to locate an NPC. So the level of effort might vary a bit, but it's generally something that you can accomplish within the first few levels with a little help from the party.

Maxperson · Jun 23, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
Read the bit in the DMG about training times and costs for the added penalty of non-class-like behaviour.

Great! Thanks for backing me up! You do realize, don't you, that you can't actually have those penalties unless you can in fact engage in non-class like behavior, right? So the fact that the druid can be penalized for wearing the armor, means that they can wear the armor.

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.

It's basic reasoning. It would be impossible for druids to know that it interferes with their magic if they could not put it on. It would also be fairly stupid of Gygax to include that warning if they couldn't put it on.

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'.

So you seem to have a different understanding of forbidden than the rest of us do. I am forbidden to steal from Target, yet I could go to Target after I finish posting this and steal from Target if I want to. Being forbidden to do something doesn't mean you literally can't do it. It's just something that has a penalty if you engage in it. Like extra training costs and/or being unable to use your druid powers.

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.

Yep! The RAI is that druids can put on metal armor if they want to accept the mechanical consequences. Consequences that are no longer present in 5e.

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'

All I can do is show you logic and reasoning. If you refuse to accept logic and reasoning, that's on you, not me.

Maxperson · Jun 23, 2019

Ohmyn said:
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.

Except that it's not even taboo. 1e says they can't wear it, and that it interferes with their spellcasting. 2e just forbids it without saying anything. 3e says they can't wear it, and that it interferes with their spellcasting. 5e says opt not to wear it, and that it doesn't interfere with anything. There is never actually a taboo reason given for the restriction, and 5e removes it as a restriction. 4e is the only one that might say something about taboo, but I don't know and don't have access to look.

Maxperson · Jun 23, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
It all depends on whether you as DM place value in the lore and traditions of D&D. The 5E book is quite clear, they 'will not'. The Sage Advice is similarly clear - it's a 'taboo'.

Just look at real life taboos and traditions. It was not uncommon for individuals to go against them and engage in those acts anyway. The vast majority obey, but not all.

It clearly looks like most of you here do not value the intended themes of certain classes, and if you're coming from that mindset it's clear we can never agree.

Because we understand the above. It never meant to be impossible for druids to put on metal armor. Just highly unusual.

I do. I also insist my players accept those themes. To veer away from them feels sacrilegious, like adding Cthulhu mythos to Middle Earth... No, just, no.

1. railroading players is one the most frowned on things in D&D.
2. Cthulhu and space ships made it into D&D, so adding in things that go against the typical fantasy grain of D&D already has precedent.

You can keep your mind close and force players to play your one true way if you want, but if you open your mind up to exceptions, the game will become far richer. You are missing out on a lot.

JonnyP71 · Jun 23, 2019

It is not railroading to insist that a player adheres to the accepted themes of a world. It is poor form for a player to try to ride roughshod over said themes however. A DM has the right to veto anything, a good DM will use the veto sparingly, and a good player would ensure the DM never needs to use this veto.

My comments about Cthulhu was pertaining to Middle Earth, not D&D, I am aware of the existence of both S3 and WG4. If a player tries to play a Cthulhu cultist in Middle Earth, then refer to my point above.

RAI is clear to me - a Druid will not even attempt to wear metal, it is against his or her ethos. If a player cannot accept that they they won't be playing a Druid. The player should not even try to push this.

A Druid 'will not wear metal armour' is clear to me. If you play a Druid, it's not an option to even try. So don't. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with expecting certain themes with certain classes, and it's sad that 5E does not have mechanics in place to deal with deviation from those themes.

Themes and restrictions, if consistent and well grounded in the world, add to the roleplay. They do not detract from it. 'Anything goes' quickly becomes tedious.