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

[tetrasodium]

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."

so in other words there is no rule supporting the GM fiat you threatened the player with two or three times and you decided to make one up to ensure the player does not say "well actually, yes I will"?

"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.

Citing a rule that allows gm fiat to support gm fiat is quite different from a gm not invoking gm fiat to enforce a badly worded rule with no reasons or penalties for ignoring it is still very much invoking gm fiat. As someone else mentioned 5e does not even have written rules for armor materials.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

The logical conclusion of this is that the moment somebody gains Druid class levels, they are immediately brainwashed into refusing to wear metal armour under any circumstance. And that this applies to all Druids, like some universal hivemind thing, and is impossible for any of them to ever defy.

If really leaned into, this could be an unsettling setting element. Otherwise it's just silly, and not an accurate depiction of how religious taboos work. Do you think that because Catholics are only allowed to eat one full meal + two snacks on Friday, and that those meals can't include meat, that all Catholics will not eat meat on Friday?

 

[Undrave]

If really leaned into, this could be an unsettling setting element. Otherwise it's just silly, and not an accurate depiction of how religious taboos work. Do you think that because Catholics are only allowed to eat one full meal + two snacks on Friday, and that those meals can't include meat, that all Catholics will not eat meat on Friday?

Beavers and capybara were classified as 'fish' by catholic so they could eat their meat on Fridays.

Clearly, the answer here, is to classify bronze as a type of fish.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Beavers and capybara were classified as 'fish' by catholic so they could eat their meat on Fridays.

Clearly, the answer here, is to classify bronze as a type of fish.

"It says Druids. Plural. I'm just one druid.

 

[Oofta]

The logical conclusion of this is that the moment somebody gains Druidic spellcasting, they are immediately brainwashed into refusing to wear metal armour under any circumstance. And that this applies to all Druids, like some universal hivemind thing, and is impossible for any of them to ever defy.

If really leaned into, this could be an unsettling setting element. Otherwise it's just silly, and not an accurate depiction of how religious taboos work. Do you think that because Catholics are only allowed to eat one full meal + two snacks on Friday, and that those meals can't include meat, that all Catholics will not eat meat on Friday?

No, it means that if you decide to keep the rule, the character decides to forego wearing metal armor as part of becoming a druid. If they willingly put on metal armor, they are no longer a druid.

Just like if a character decides to spend all their time becoming a fighter instead of hitting the books and becoming a wizard. People make choices all the time, there's no brain washing involved.

Either accept the rule as it stands, find a work around or change it. Don't make excuses. Don't come up with silly scenarios. Just say "I don't like the rule so hopefully it will be removed if there is ever another edition and in my home game we ignore it". Done.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

And if you trust Crawford then that could be a reason for houseruling it. Though a lot of rules exist for fluff reasons, so that in itself is not a reason for ignoring it.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

No, it means that if you decide to keep the rule, the character decides to forego wearing metal armor as part of becoming a druid. If they willingly put on metal armor, they are no longer a druid.

Just like if a character decides to spend all their time becoming a fighter instead of hitting the books and becoming a wizard. People make choices all the time, there's no brain washing involved.

Either accept the rule as it stands, find a work around or change it. Don't make excuses. Don't come up with silly scenarios. Just say "I don't like the rule so hopefully it will be removed if there is ever another edition and in my home game we ignore it". Done.

That the rules can be changed at the table doesn't protect the rules as they are written in the book from analysis or criticism.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Not a great analogy because a druid has proficiency in medium armor other than hide, while a champion fighter doesn’t have a spellcasting feature. It would be like if fighters learned spells, but then in the wording of their spellcasting feature it said “champions will not cast fireball” despite it being on their spell list.

I think that’s one of the biggest sources of contention here. WotC could easily have given druids proficiency with light armor and hide armor if those were the only armors they wanted them to be able to use. Clearly, since they have proficiency in all medium armors and we have confirmation that the restriction is intended only for lore reasons and not for balance reasons, it should be uncontroversial to say that druids can make use of chain shirt, scale, breastplate, and half plate made of alternative materials without upsetting the intended game balance.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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

Won't is a choice. That's why it's "won't" and not "can't." I rule prohibits with "can't." A poor choice on the location of the fluff doesn't turn it into a rule.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Because armor proficiency in 5e is done by weight group, not individual armor. So they have a kinda kludgey workaround so that they have access to some, but not all, light and medium armor.