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

[Faolyn]

Right. So that's why I find it a bit weird that people are so willing to waive the restriction like it was not a big deal. It kinda is. Do you also give other classes +3 to AC because they want it?

Well, the best medium would just to be to make those heavier armors available in non-metal. Maybe not readily available--you have to go to a specific place to get that chiton plate armor. But available.

 

[lingual]

I don't. It's clear to me and everyone I have played with.

The only ambiguity I see is with studded leather armour.

I don't really understand what people don't understand about the rule in general. I get that people don't like the rule, but I don't understand how it is hard to understand.

I feel that there is enough opinions from the other side so that there definitely is some ambiguity. If a significant portion of the players read the same text and come to a different conclusion, then I assume the rule could be clarified better.

 

[Remathilis]

What precludes specific armour proficiencies be given out though? It would be more consistent that way.

They opted not to do it that way. Maybe 6e will go back to individual weapon and armor proficiencies like 2e did.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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. 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.

I want to approach this from a different angle, just as a thought experiment if you will.

You described touching the metal armor thusly "touching the metal armor made the druid feel uncomfortable, as if she was holding the slick carcass of a rotting fish." and then followed it with "it made her skin crawl, as if she were wearing something lifeless ungraved from the earth"

Your intent with this was to convey how the worked metal felt wrong and disgusting to the druid, correct?


So, in your world where mined and worked metal feels like a rotting carcass to a druid, then this would be accurate for a later scene.

"You walk into the dragon's hoard room and nearly vomit. The floor is littered with gold and silver that feel like rotting eyeballs slickly rolling around on the floor. The touch of it is like being in a charnal house, and your entire body shudders and rejects the sensation. You pick a magical scimitar, and it feels like you are holding a rotting limb."

After all, gold and silver are worked metal. If you had a shield made of gold, it would be a metal shield, so if it is the material itself that feels wrong... then druids would reject metal of all types. Coins, metal objects, bracelets, weapons they are proficient in, it'd make their spellcasting a little harder, spells like Reverse Gravity require them to have iron if they aren't using a focus, Not sure how to have a gem-encrusted bowl worth 1,000 gp if it isn't made of precious metals. Maybe it is made from some stone like jade...

Which is a point, isn't it. Some people say that the "no metal armor" rule is because of mining. Evil mining that destroys the environment, so druids reject metal armor.

So, why do they have no issue with gemstones? In fact, druidic magic requires gemstones, which have to be mined. Same with the Jade that makes the circlet for Shapechange.

So, do you keep consistent with your descriptions? Is the druid constantly assaulted every time they pick up a metal weapon, use gold to pay for anything, enter a fire giant's hall made of metal... or did you only include this description this one time to convince them not to wear metal armor, and that alone?

 

[ad_hoc]

I feel that there is enough opinions from the other side so that there definitely is some ambiguity. If a significant portion of the players read the same text and come to a different conclusion, then I assume the rule could be clarified better.

I get that people don't understand it I just don't know why they don't understand it.

It is as clear as day to me. Now if it said "Druids don't want to wear metal armour" then whether they could would be ambiguous. But it doesn't.

I don't see how it can be any more clear.

 

[Remathilis]

... but druids are proficient with half plate. So if they suit up in half plate none of the following penalties apply:

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.

They are proficinct, but with a caveat that they won't wear it made of metal.

That is separate from being proficinct in specific armors and akin to a monk losing martial art benefits in leather armor or a rogue who is unable to sneak attack with a club.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can do what you like in your homebrew game, but i find the base game is stronger if the classes have distinct and clear identities, otherwise why have classes at all?

Yeah. The armour limitation is one of the things that sets druids and clerics apart, and to me it thematically works that druids are nature hippies that wear leathers and furs. If this limitation wouldn't exist, it would strongly incentivise every druid suit up in a half-plate ASAP, and that just seems wrong to me. It is not that some druids would not be leather wearing hippies, it would be that basically none are.

Now if the argument is that limiting druids this way makes them too weak then that's another mater. But does it? Lets say that the GM doesn't introduce non-metal versions of primarily metallic armour, and the best druid can get is hide or studded leather* + a shield and magical versions of them. Is this too weak? Is this unbalanced? Maybe it is, and if it is I'd like to know. But then I'd still rather seek other methods to buff them than remove the metal limitations. Could barkskin be buffed for example?

(* Studded leather doesn't mention metal. It says 'reinforced with rivets or spikes,' which presumably are metal. But considering it is primarily leather, is a nonsense made up D&D armour and doesn't specifically say metal, I wouldn't count it as 'metal armour' in rules sense. It can be reinforced with boar teeth or whatever.)

 

[lingual]

I get that people don't understand it I just don't know why they don't understand it.

It is as clear as day to me. Now if it said "Druids don't want to wear metal armour" then whether they could would be ambiguous. But it doesn't.

I don't see how it can be any more clear.

Oh I'm with you and that's how I handle it. They just don't wear it. Or will take it off at first feasible opportunity if someone hazed them.one night after a night of drinking and put it on them while they were passed out.

 

[Yaarel]

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. 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.

Most people agree, the Druid does not gain proficiency with metal armors from the Druid class proficiencies.

The debate (because of the poor wording) is whether a Druid character can get proficiency with metal armors by some other means.

The answer is obviously, yes, a Druid can take a feat, or so on, just like a Wizard can get armor proficiencies this way.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Yeah. The armour limitation is one of the things that sets druids and clerics apart, and to me it thematically works that druids are nature hippies that wear leathers and furs. If this limitation wouldn't exist, it would strongly incentivise every druid suit up in a half-plate ASAP, and that just seems wrong to me. It is not that some druids would not be leather wearing hippies, it would be that basically none are.

Now if the argument is that limiting druids this way makes them too weak then that's another mater. But does it? Lets say that the GM doesn't introduce non-metal versions of primarily metallic armour, and the best druid can get is hide or studded leather* + a shield and magical versions of them. Is this too weak? Is this unbalanced? Maybe it is, and if it is I'd like to know. But then I'd still rather seek other methods to buff them than remove the metal limitations. Could barkskin be buffed for example?

(* Studded leather doesn't mention metal. It says 'reinforced with rivets or spikes,' which presumably are metal. But considering it is primarily leather, is a nonsense made up D&D armour and doesn't specifically say metal, I wouldn't count it as 'metal armour' in rules sense. It can be reinforced with boar teeth or whatever.)

Mechanically i personally think all the casting classes could be limited to light armor and it wouldn't really be that big of a deal. They'd get hit a few more times, so what? To me, Clerics have heavier armor than that so they can fulfill the archetypical fantasy of being a armored Cleric-Knight in the style of the crusades, not because they have a mechanical need for more AC points.