D&D 5E Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[Crimson Longinus]

I disagree that most rules have fluff attached to them,

Of course they do. The rules are littered with references to the things in fictional world. That's fluff. It's a sword that deals slashing damage, not a hit-point-remover dealing damage type 2.

but at the very least the weird setting specific stuff should be in setting specific books.

I don't think druids not wearing metal is any more weirdly setting specific that a lot of the other stuff the class mechanics imply. It's just a D&D thing.

 

[Yaarel]

For the current 5e Druid armor proficiencies, I suspect, the leather and hide armors are something like animal totems, wearing the skin of the animal to embody the ferocity of the animal.

But Druid magic is more than beast magic. Druid magic also includes elementism, including plants as a kind element.

So, if a Druid wants to obtain the armor proficiency and wear metal armor because of earth magic, that too is appropriate.

Indeed, there can easily be a new Druid circle that gains metal armor proficiencies.

 

[Weiley31]

Half-Plate for Druids would be Petrified Mushroom Armor.

 

[Oofta]

I just really wish that fluff would stay out of the rules section.

Almost as if it's a rule, not fluff.

Like all rules you can always change it, or in the case of druids come up with a workaround.

 

[tetrasodium]

Nope. I read the rules, called a break, and formulated a work-around with the player. I don't know how you missed that.

Why so hostile?

Which part of the rules covers this? Can you cite the book, page number, and the rule's actual text itself because there does not appear to be such a "rule" to read in support of that without invoking gm fiat & implied threats leveled at the player in question.

I described how touching the metal armor made the druid feel uncomfortable, as if she was holding the slick carcass of a rotting fish. And a few minutes later when the druid was putting the armor on, I described how it made her skin crawl, as if she were wearing something lifeless ungraved from the earth. And then I called a break.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Almost as if it's a rule, not fluff.

Like all rules you can always change it, or in the case of druids come up with a workaround.

It's fluff pretending to be a rule. The designers want to see druids wearing non-metal, so they force the aesthetic with something that's kind of a rule due to 'natural language' not being clear, concise or appropriate for conveying rules.

Of course they do. The rules are littered with references to the things in fictional world. That's fluff. It's a sword that deals slashing damage, not a hit-point-remover dealing damage type 2.

I don't really consider this to be fluff. Slashing is a keyword for a damage type. I'm talking about things like the old Paladin code where the designers are clearly forcing an aesthetic onto the player.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which part of the rules covers this? Can you cite the book, page number, and the rule's actual text itself because there does not appear to be such a "rule" to read in support of that without invoking gm fiat & implied threats leveled at the player in question.

The rule is that druids do not wear metal armour. Justification is not given. The GM came up with one. To me this sounds far more immersive than "the PHB says no."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's fluff pretending to be a rule. The designers want to see druids wearing non-metal, so they force the aesthetic with something that's kind of a rule due to 'natural language' not being clear, concise or appropriate for conveying rules.

It's a rule that implies fluff. And yes, it is done to reinforce a theme. This is a good thing. The specific implementation of the rule is less good though, as it is unnecessarily vague.

I don't really consider this to be fluff. Slashing is a keyword for a damage type.

It still is fluff. The rules are actually built to emulate fluff. Fluffless rules would not refer to things in the fictional world at all.

I'm talking about things like the old Paladin code where the designers are clearly forcing an aesthetic onto the player.

That is emulating the theme, and is part of good game design, especially in a splat based game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It still is fluff. The rules are actually built to emulate fluff. Fluffless rules would not refer to things in the fictional world at all.

Hard disagree as that would imply there's no such thing as fluffless rules.

 

[lingual]

Which part of the rules covers this? Can you cite the book, page number, and the rule's actual text itself because there does not appear to be such a "rule" to read in support of that without invoking gm fiat & implied threats leveled at the player in question.

They worked it out at their table smoothly. It shouldn't be our business to ask for citations. Whether you wanna call it a house rule or not, it doesn't matter.