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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I'm sure there could be, it would just be jarringly bland and would read more like a math book. And I don't know what your definition is, as it simply seem to be 'rules without fluff that I don't like' which doesn't seem particularly coherent.

 

[Remathilis]

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 D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." - DMG opening text.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

It's very clearly a rule. Right there in proficiencies "Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

If you want to ignore it, provide equivalent armor that is not made of metal, feel free. It's your game and I have a few house rules myself. I just don't see the point in saying that it's not a rule because you don't like it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Why is "what happens if they wear armor anyway" even a thing? I mean, what happens if that champion fighter decides to cast fireball just because they want to?

The player still has agency. They could have chosen to play a PC that can wear armor. If they want to play a druid (or any other class) that ignores the rules of the game discuss it with me off line, preferably before the player has committed to the class.

If someone refuses to follow the rules of the game they can find a different DM. I don't think that's asking too much.

What happens if a paladin says they commit an evil act? They fall, right? You don't tell them it's impossible and when they chose the character class they were making an irrevocable choice to never commit an evil act. Why is a druid any different? Why are a druid's taboos so powerful that they are an irrevocable choice that no temptation can overcome, when paladins and clerics can forsake their ideals?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I just don't see the point in saying that it's not a rule because you don't like it.

Because it says will not as if it's a choice instead of 'cannot' as if it were a rule. Because natural language or something.

 

[Oofta]

What happens if a paladin says they commit an evil act? They fall, right? You don't tell them it's impossible and when they chose the character class they were making an irrevocable choice to never commit an evil act. Why is a druid any different? Why are a druid's taboos so powerful that they are an irrevocable choice that no temptation can overcome, when paladins and clerics can forsake their ideals?

If a paladin repeatedly breaks their oath they would become an Oathbreaker. Well, they would also be told that the PC becomes an NPC because I don't allow evil PCs but that's a different issue altogether.

 

[Oofta]

Because it says will not as if it's a choice instead of 'cannot' as if it were a rule. Because natural language or something.

Right, so they will not. You can't say they are doing it if they will not do it ... that's just ... odd weasel wording to try to get out of a clear restriction because "English language" or something. Might as well say it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Again if you don't like it change the rule. I don't see why it's controversial.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have to disagree with the idea that 'will not wear' is just fluff. It is in the rule section. The rule doesn't say why they will not wear metal armour, but they won't and that's the rule. If the rule says that a creature won't do something then them doing that thing is breaking the rule. Now it is weird rule so in that sense I can see people wanting to houserule it, but still.

It’s not that it’s just fluff, it’s that it’s there only for lore reasons and not for balance reasons. We know this to be the case, we have explicit confirmation that RAI it’s a lore thing not a balance thing.

Also, are druids generally considered underpowered? My impression was that they're one of the more powerful classes already.

Moon druids are very powerful at low levels, but start to fall off at mid-level and are by high level are a bit underwhelming. Other druids are more consistently good, I would say on par with other full casters.

 

[Undrave]

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."

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.

It's bad fluff masquerading as a rule. If the intent was that Druid never wear half-plate, then why give them full on medium armor proficiency and not just say "Hide armor" as proficiency? Or say they can't use wild shape while wearing metal.

It's not worded like a rule, and it's terrible fluff because it doesn't explain squat. It should have been a sidebar explaining WHY Druids won't wear metal armor. What motivates that decision, or at least ask the player to come up with a reason.

The Barbarian not getting their unarmored defence while wearing armor, or the monk losing most of their features without armor? THOSE are rules! Real RULES that DO something. This so-called rule basically takes away agency from the player for no reason at all.

Heck, armor materials are not a rule element. That so-called rule doesn't have any game term to hang its hook on. It's a rule that literally does nothing because it has nothing to interact with and no consequences (like you would if you tried to wear armor without the proficiency). What if we started at higher level and got some spending money for equipment and I buy a breastplate for my Druid and just SAY it's not metal? Can the DM just say 'no'? There's no rules about materials or how much more it would cost. I can just say I had it made out of chitin.

And it's not really fluff because its just a naked statement "Druids will not wear armor made of metal" without ANY story to it.

It's a stupid piece of text.

I have no problem with the concept of limiting what kind of armor a character can wear for thematic reasons, but I object to the sheer arbitrary nature of this particular instance. It's empty and doesn't spark any sort of interesting discussion. Give me something to work with here.

 

[Oofta]

It’s not that it’s just fluff, it’s that it’s there only for lore reasons and not for balance reasons. We know this to be the case, we have explicit confirmation that RAI it’s a lore thing not a balance thing.
...

Which is why changing the rule or allowing for alternate materials is not an issue.