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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yes, that would be a better rule.

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.

Yes, it would be better if the lore behind the rule was provided.

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).

The armour descriptions are in the PHB and they say which of them are made of metal. Or do you think heat metal spell does nothing either?

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.

GM is of course free to introduce custom items. Now realistically chitin or bone armour wouldn't be even remotely as protective as metal, but this is D&D so who knows?

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.

Yes, it is not a well made rule. It still is rule and what it mechanically does is clear: druids will not wear metal armour. In a situation where your druid has ended up wearing a metal armour, the rule obviously has not been followed. I am fine with people not liking the rule, and wanting to change it; I change rules all the time. I'm less fine with people trying to pretend their houserules are not houserules though.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Except that weapons are also grouped together under 'simple' and 'martial', and yet if you look at classes like the Rogue, Wizard or the Monk, you will find individual weapons listed. Breaking up proficiency groups into specific items is not unheard of in 5e. If they wanted to, they could have easily written 'Hide armor' as a proficiency of the Druid and leave it at that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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?

Druids not wearing metal armor is apparently a fundamental rule in the cosmos, and much more important than anything else. A druid could open a toxic waste factory, and so long as they arent wearing metal armor, suffer no consequences.

It's a dumb "rule" and should feel bad.

 

[CleverNickName]

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'll do you one better. Here's a screen capture from the Player's Handbook:

"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." It's in the Class Features section of the druid class, in the Proficiencies list, under Armor, right after the list of armor types that the druid is proficient with. It's pretty clear.

I mean, there are plenty of ambiguous, hard-to-understand rules in the Player's Handbook, but this isn't one of them. I don't understand the confusion.

Sure, we can argue about why that rule is there, and maybe discuss house rules that remove or omit it. But the rule itself? Clear as a bell.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't have a problem with people saying they don't like the rule. I disagree with coming up with silly things like "it's not really a rule" or that somehow they have no free will. Restrictions on what someone will or will not do because of their religious beliefs is hardly a radical concept.

Don't like the rule and think it should be changed? Cool. I'd rather have a side quest to obtain or craft non metal heavier armor if it ever came up. I've only had a couple of druids in any campaign for whatever reason, the issue was never raised.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, that would be a better rule.

More importantly, the rest of the class would be balanced against the expectation of them having a lower AC without feat or MC investments

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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"?

I didn't, you're confusing me to someone else. But the rule is that the druids will not wear metal armour. GM expecting the players to follow the rules is not GM fiat, it is a basic assumption of the game. GM providing fiction to support the mechanics is also required part of the game, and that also happened in the example.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'll do you one better. Here's a screen capture from the Player's Handbook:

View attachment 141587

"druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." It's in the Class Features section of the druid class, in the Proficiencies list, under Armor, right after the list of armor types that the druid is proficient with. It's pretty clear.

I mean, there are plenty of ambiguous, hard-to-understand rules in the Player's Handbook, but this isn't one of them.

Now can you show me the part where it talks about "touching the metal armor made the druid feel uncomfortable, as if she was holding the slick carcass of a rotting fish." & "it made her skin crawl, as if she were wearing something lifeless ungraved from the earth." Like I asked?

 

[Undrave]

The armour descriptions are in the PHB and they say which of them are made of metal. Or do you think heat metal spell does nothing either?

A dick GM could easily say "Oh, his breastplate is actually made of Dragon Scales, not actual metal so you can't use Heat Metal on it".

Yes, it is not a well made rule. It still is rule and what it mechanically does is clear: druids will not wear metal armour. In a situation where your druid has ended up wearing a metal armour, the rule obviously has not been followed. I am fine with people not liking the rule, and wanting to change it; I change rules all the time. I'm less fine with people trying to pretend their houserules are not houserules though.

FYI, when I played a Druid, I did kept to this "rule" (I did end up in dragon scale armor), but I still think calling it a 'rule' is exaggerating. It basically begs for house rules: what happens to a Druid that breaks the taboo? No idea, gotta house rule it. Can armor be made of other materials than metal? No idea, gotta houserule it. What if it's an armor I made myself with my Smith Tools proficiency? Houserule it! What if I don't care about this restriction? Houserule it!

 

[Remathilis]

As an aside, my monk wants to know when he's going to be allowed to karate-chop someone while wearing leather armor; the same armor that rogues can do backflips in.