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

[jmartkdr2]

(* 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.)

Rivets would heavily imply metal, that's what real-world rivets are made of (you forge them closed, after all). But spikes can be dang near anything, which itself implies non-metal SL being an option.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's the stance i take too. Whenever this whole debate comes up, i prefer to just side-step the "RAW" or whatever, and instead think "why is having slightly more AC number more important than just playing the archetype the class represents normally?

I personally do not make this a question of balance at all, and apparently the same do all those who unlike me forbid metal armor but allow equivalent armor of non-metal materials. I say that it is in fact pretty much the forced archetype which is wrong.

It might not be wrong in a vacuum, just like if there was a line in the PHB saying "elven wizards will not drink beer" and "halfling rogues will not wear hats". Would you like such game? Maybe ONE campaign like that would be fun, but ALL? And what if it was only your character with a dumb restriction?

It might also not have been wrong in an older edition where also Clerics could only use blunt weapons, Barbarians could not be lawful, Monks instead had to be, and so on with various restrictions to half the character classes.

But it IS wrong to enforce such a cosmetic element of archetype in the context of a game where every other character in the game is given near-total roleplay freedom on things more serious than a fabric, and even mechanical limitations can be overcome with feats or multiclassing, but not this one if the DM chooses to treat it as a hard rule instead of fluff. Even moreso nowadays that they're campaigning against alignments for races being too strict, restricting druid armors by material strides with everything else!

I tell you what: this bad issue is unique in the whole game, why? Because it was a last-minute addition that was never in the public playtest. What are others among the most hotly debated elements of 5e? The Sorcerer's too few known spells and the Beastmaster, both of which were added to the PHB without a public playtest. I bet that if they had publicly playtested all these, they would have ended up differently in the PHB. But since there are many gamers who treat the PHB as holy text, they would never admit that some things are just a half-assed job, and hide behind "tradition". The only real tradition here is that apparently we always have to have at least some half-assed jobs in every edition to call it D&D.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

So what identity is being enforced by having druids who can deck themselves out in hundreds of iron and steel chains as "jewelry" but can't hold a single sheet of steel in their left hand (metal shield)?

A druid can ride and use a mech (the Apparatus of Kwalish) or forge and animate an Iron Golem (Tome of Iron Golems) but can't wear a suit of chain mail.

They can wield a staff made entirely from iron, no penalties or questions.

So, where is the identity here?

 

[Undrave]

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?

This is the worse version of that tho. It's "play this identity because we said so". Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, they all have ACTUAL RULES that push them towards a play style and a load out that match their identity. Somehow, they dropped the ball with the Druid.

It would have been SUPER easy to just add a line that say "You cannot Wildshape while wearing armor made of metal" and then maybe specify that fasteners (like buckles or buttons) are okay.

 

[Yaarel]

That the rule lacks justification is valid criticism, it would be better if it did. This however doesn't make the rule ambiguous at all. What the rule does is crystal clear, why is does that is less clear.

The rule is ambiguous because it is unexplained. Some forumers read the rule as if flavor. (For some reason the Druid is adverse to metal armor but not to metal weapons. Then the forumers invent some reason for this aversion that doesnt exist in the text.) I read the rule as strictly mechanics. (The rule simply means, the Druid class lacks proficiencies with metal armor. That is it. There is no flavor. If the player wants metal armor proficiencies, then get them from somewhere else.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

But, per the rules as read absolutely, they still won't wear metal armor. So, a druid who takes the heavily armored feat to gain proficiency with heavy armor... still can't wear full plate.

That is what the wording does. And it makes no sense.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

So what identity is being enforced by having druids who can deck themselves out in hundreds of iron and steel chains as "jewelry" but can't hold a single sheet of steel in their left hand (metal shield)?

A druid can ride and use a mech (the Apparatus of Kwalish) or forge and animate an Iron Golem (Tome of Iron Golems) but can't wear a suit of chain mail.

They can wield a staff made entirely from iron, no penalties or questions.

So, where is the identity here?

Clearly, wotc hasn't been incredibly strict with this sort of thing this edition. This whole armor thing is them having the courage to include the tiniest of tiny nudges. To me, the details of specific scenarios are not as important as the general theme. I don't allow people to "gatcha" me with "RAW" arguments, because i don't see that as in the spirit of the game.

This is the worse version of that tho. It's "play this identity because we said so". Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, they all have ACTUAL RULES that push them towards a play style and a load out that match their identity. Somehow, they dropped the ball with the Druid.

It would have been SUPER easy to just add a line that say "You cannot Wildshape while wearing armor made of metal" and then maybe specify that fasteners (like buckles or buttons) are okay.

I think you can certainly have some good back and forth on how and how not to implement mechanics that encourage the class fantasy. What i can't stand is the idea that there is no such thing as class fantasy and that it is all just numbers and buttons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I personally do not make this a question of balance at all, and apparently the same do all those who unlike me forbid metal armor but allow equivalent armor of non-metal materials. I say that it is in fact pretty much the forced archetype which is wrong.

It might not be wrong in a vacuum, just like if there was a line in the PHB saying "elven wizards will not drink beer" and "halfling rogues will not wear hats". Would you like such game? Maybe ONE campaign like that would be fun, but ALL? And what if it was only your character with a dumb restriction?

It might also not have been wrong in an older edition where also Clerics could only use blunt weapons, Barbarians could not be lawful, Monks instead had to be, and so on with various restrictions to half the character classes.

But it IS wrong to enforce such a cosmetic element of archetype in the context of a game where every other character in the game is given near-total roleplay freedom on things more serious than a fabric, and even mechanical limitations can be overcome with feats or multiclassing, but not this one if the DM chooses to treat it as a hard rule instead of fluff. Even moreso nowadays that they're campaigning against alignments for races being too strict, restricting druid armors by material strides with everything else!

The whole bloody point of class based game is to enforce thematic archetypes. If you don't like that, don't play class based game to begin with.

Also, if this restriction wouldn't exist, there still really wouldn't be a choice. All druids would just wear metal armour because that's simply better.

 

[Plaguescarred]

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.

Proficiencies are not material based. Druid are proficient with all light/medium armors and shield, regardless of what they are made of. They simply won't wear those made of metal.

Removing proficiency bonus for doing so can make sense, but it's not a rule written or even intended when they discussed it in Sage Advice.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Not it's not akin. All of these have specific impact. There is no penalty for the Druid who decides "screw it, I'm wearing half-plate today!"

(* 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.)

So... Houserule it? Like I said, this so called "rule" just seems to exist to create house rules.

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.

What?! No! Since when? Nobody's agreeing that Druids don't have proficiency with 'metal' armor that's not at all the question?! Most people?? The question is wether the text "a Druid will not wear an armor made of metal" is rule or fluff.

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.

They'd be a pretty terrible Knight if they got hit all the time.

Clerics and Invokers should have stayed distinct...