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

[jgsugden]

"Why doesn't Bob wear metal armor? Is it because he's a druid?"

"Bob who? You mean Bob the bear? Bears don't wear armor."

"I mean when he is in human form."

"He has a human form? Is he a were-bear?"

 

[Psyzhran2357]

Following the rules printed in the book is "absolutely morally abhorrent"?

Don't like the rule? Change it when you're running a game.

It's clearly spelled out under proficiencies.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

There does not need to be a mechanical penalty, they will not do it. Ipso facto, if your character is wearing metal armor they are not a druid.

Don't like it, change the rules. Playing at my table and don't like it? Discuss how to get alternative non-metal armor (i.e. dragonscale armor), don't wear metal armor or find a different table.

And the point the opposition is making is that putting it there without further elaboration or justification was a mistake, and quite frankly idiotic, and as the thread title puts it, poorly implemented. It would have been better served as a sidebar in in the class introduction with lore elaborations on why this taboo is a thing in the first place. I just had a talk over Discord on the r/dndnext server this morning on this very matter, and pretty much everybody agreed that this metal restriction is on flimsy ground at best.

And yes, I think I believe that blindly following rules "because they are so" without giving consideration as to why there are so is not a good thing to do. At least provide a setting justification or a balance concern re: their AC before you go about shutting down player options.

 

[pogre]

my list of grievances to present to all of my future DMs.

I'll admit I had not thought much about the druids and metal thing. It probably should be an all or nothing type thing. I'm still a little peeved they let clerics have edged weapons!

However, I have to ask, do you really present lists of grievances to your DMs?

I am not sure how I would react to that. It amuses me greatly to think of a new player coming to my table and saying "Here are my list of grievances."

 

[jasper]

I glad you got some people to agree with you. But I don't agree. I have hear, read, etc the same gripe since 1980. Here is my answer from DEC 1980. In my world the gawds and dm says no metal armour for druids. Look for other magical armour, ac bracers and other protection. Or Don't play druids.
Here is my updated answer from 2000, don't like my ruling. Don't play at my table. See you at bad video night.

 

[Satyrn]

I'll admit I had not thought much about the druids and metal thing. It probably should be an all or nothing type thing. I'm still a little peeved they let clerics have edged weapons!

However, I have to ask, do you really present lists of grievances to your DMs?

I am not sure how I would react to that. It amuses me greatly to think of a new player coming to my table and saying "Here are my list of grievances."

 

[Dausuul]

Wizards in every edition of the game have been able to don any armor they wish, there'd just be penalties if they didn't otherwise have the training to do so.

Actually... my recollection is this was not the case in early editions. I don't have my books handy so I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that there was at least one of those early editions which simply said "Wizards can't wear armor." No consequences for wearing armor were spelled out. If you tried to put on armor, it fell off because wizard.

I suppose it's appropriate that druids would be the one class continuing to write their class rules in a silly, primitive way that every other class moved on from several editions ago.

 

[Ohmyn]

It's clearly spelled out under proficiencies.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

There does not need to be a mechanical penalty, they will not do it. Ipso facto, if your character is wearing metal armor they are not a druid.

Don't like it, change the rules. Playing at my table and don't like it? Discuss how to get alternative non-metal armor (i.e. dragonscale armor), don't wear metal armor or find a different table.

Sure, and it's clearly spelled out under the Paladin of Devotion's tenants that they don't lie or cheat, but they can learn or use the Deception skill and they're still a Paladin.

It clearly says under Creating A Monk that those who leave their cloisters take their work seriously, but there's nothing saying that if they're laid back they're no longer a Monk. It also says that as a rule, Monks care little for material wealth and are driven to accomplish a greater mission rather than slaying monsters and plundering their treasure, but they can be a murder hobo and they're still a Monk.

It clearly states under Creating a Cleric that the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody, but you can choose to disavow all deities and you're still a Cleric. You can also be true neutral as a Cleric and not choose not to have any principles to embody. There is no mechanical requirement to follow a deity, and if you do have one, there is no mechanical requirement to even be of the same alignment.

There is likewise nothing that says as soon as a Druid decides to wear metal they stop being a Druid. If the story mechanics (which Sage Advice have stated the Druid restriction is) of what a character "won't" do are to be enforced as a mechanical limitation, then a lot of player characters at such tables don't actually have classes, because they're not playing to the class's story.

 

[jasper]

Actually... my recollection is this was not the case in early editions. I don't have my books handy so I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that there was at least one of those early editions which simply said "Wizards can't wear armor." No consequences for wearing armor were spelled out. If you tried to put on armor, it fell off because wizard.

I suppose it's appropriate that druids would be the one class continuing to use a silly, primitive rule that every other class moved on from several editions ago.

there you see. that is the reason. Druids are old fashion and primitive. The rule was good enough back in AD&D it is good enough today. Now shut up! Put Lawerence Welk on. Feed my prunes and change my depends.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Sure, and it's clearly spelled out under the Paladin of Devotion's tenants that they don't lie or cheat, but they can learn or use the Deception skill and they're still a Paladin.

It is quite easily possible to deceive without lying or cheating. Consider, for example, the concept of the feint. I don't recall any historical or fictional circumstance where feinting would be considered dishonorable.

 

[Psyzhran2357]

It is quite easily possible to deceive without lying or cheating. Consider, for example, the concept of the feint. I don't recall any historical or fictional circumstance where feinting would be considered dishonorable.

But mechanically speaking, that would be taking the Help action, or a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, not a Charisma (Deception) check.