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

[Oofta]

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.

I have no problem with alternative materials for armor if that's what the group wants to do. There have been non-metal heavier armors throughout history. It's not like D&D is particularly realistic when it comes to armor in the first place.

 

[Undrave]

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.

"Will not" instead of "Can not", all the while having full proficiency in all medium armor. This implies the druid LEARNED to use those armor, probably put them on a few times to do so, and then decide "nah, it's not for me".

"will not" is a statement of intent, a decision, it's not a restriction.

If it was a restriction then why doesn't it have text similar to, say, the Monk's martial arts feature?

Like this? :

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:

Its a 'rule' that has no consequences. A character can do whatever the heck they want, but there is always a consequence. A Dwarven Monk can wear full plate if they WANT, but there would be clear consequences. A Wizard can put on a Full Plate without proficiencies if they WANT bu there would be consequences. A Druid can't put on a Breastplate if they WANT and then nothing? They're proficient and none of their features get taken off.

If it's only social then what's stoping a Druid from wearing metal armor while dungeon delving, and then quickly switching to Hide while going into town? Nobody would know any better.

Somehow, the game is deciding for me that my character will never EVER want to wear metal armor and that no convoluted situations could ever occur that could convince them otherwise? With no explanation whatsoever?

This is the kind of 'gamist' thing people usually raise hell over, but since it aligns with tradition it gets a pass??

 

[Undrave]

BTW, this is the rules on armor proficiencies:

Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells.

Now THAT is a real rule! With an actual consequence!

 

[CleverNickName]

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?

That came from the story. The armor in question was a suit of "Mariner's Armor" in the form of a breastplate, so I did a little improv to describe it as feeling uncomfortable for the druid. I decided to keep the nautical theme, so I went with having it feel like a dead fish.

I needed an in-story way to remind the player that his character wouldn't wear the armor, and that was what I came up with. (I'm kinda proud of it, actually...improv is hard.) Then I called a break so that the player and I could discuss it, because that's what I do when there's a misunderstanding of the rules.

I know you would have done it differently, and I can tell that you want to paint me as some kind of jerk or iron-fisted DM for enforcing the rules as written. That's your prerogative. But I can't stress this enough: this was not a big deal.

 

[Yaarel]

I feel people are reading too much into the Druid class description:

"Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

Here, the unexplained "will not" is merely clarifies that even tho the Druid can wear medium armor, the proficiency doesnt include metal chain, scale, or breastplate.

In other words, the typical zero-level Druid class training doesnt include metal armors. But if a Druid character obtains the metal armor proficiency from an other source, such as a Human feat or a Mountain Dwarf culture, that is fine.

If someone wants to invent a flavorful rationale, perhaps it is easier for the Druid to magically bond with the totem of an animal whose mind is easier for a humanoid to relate to, rather than the mind of an element, like metallic earth, which is more alien. At second level, after mastering some elemental magic, the more advanced Druid can potentially pick a Druid circle that grants metal armor proficiency, and bond more comfortably with it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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".

That's not a dick GM, it is a GM who is delivering a dragon scale armour for your druid to wear!

But the point was that there are other rules that rely on armour metallicity, which you claimed to not be a rule concept.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Will not" instead of "Can not", all the while having full proficiency in all medium armor. This implies the druid LEARNED to use those armor, probably put them on a few times to do so, and then decide "nah, it's not for me".

"will not" is a statement of intent, a decision, it's not a restriction.

The rule is 'X will not do Y.' X doing Y is breaking the rule. There is zero ambiguity here. You're free to supply your own reasoning why X will not do Y, but the rule is clear.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

No, and my reason is that i really, really like any, even the slightest, of incentives to play a character archetype rather than a subversion. I'd love if every class had some variant of this. Though, I'd love even more if they were not needed.

 

[Yaarel]

The Druid class reveres celestial features of nature, including sun and moon. One would expect a Druid to revere natural meteoric iron.

In any case, if the Druid uses metal weapons, including valuable artificial steel, for spearheads, scimitars, daggers, sickles, etcetera, then obviously the Druid has no discomfort with metal per se.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Unlike the druid, monk has