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

[Oofta]

If they dont wear, they never become proficient with it.

If they will never use a greatsword, they likewise will never be proficient with a greatsword.

It's not about proficiency. If they wanted a multi-classed druid, or a druid with a racial proficiency to wear metal armor they would have written the rule differently.

 

[Undrave]

There can be many different reasons for that. Ask the GM.

If it's only a philosophical/belief reason, then that should 100% be in the hand of the players.

 

[Oofta]

So you agree it's a bizarre outlier and are just digging your heels in. Gotcha.

No, I just don't care for gotcha questions.

Druids will not wear metal armor. If I'm a dick DM and put metal armor on a druid while they are incapacitated they will take it off as soon as possible. Next you'll be asking "but what if it's magical armor that they can't take off?" or some other silliness.

 

[Oofta]

If it's only a philosophical/belief reason, then that should 100% be in the hand of the players.

It's in the hands of the people who wrote the restriction for the class.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

How else could you even word it if you want to restrict druids to non-metallic armor but think medium armors made with alternative materials should be an optional variant? Other than a very wordy (and potentially confusing) explanation? Many, many rules could use additional explanation, I don't see a reason this one is any worse.

Whether or not you agree with druids not wearing metallic armor, they stated it in about the most clear and efficient way possible.

No, they didn't. Applying a penalty but giving the player the choice is the clearest and most efficient way. "Druids wearing metal armor may not cast spells, use wild shape, and suffer disadvantage on X checks" is far better than a modron like lack of will.

 

[Yaarel]

It's not about proficiency. If they wanted a multi-classed druid, or a druid with a racial proficiency to wear metal armor they would have written the rule differently.

It is only about proficiency. Nothing else.

The designers didnt want the Druid to have proficiency with metal armor. But a multiclass Druid can wear metal armor because they get the proficiency from elsewhere.

 

[Undrave]

Why do rogues have to use finesse weapons to sneak attack? Why do all barbarians need to use strength weapons to rage? Why can't monks use martial arts in armor? Why can't wizards learn healing magic? Why can I have draconic blood magic and make pacts with devils but not vice versa? Why are paladins held to oaths but not clerics? You get the idea. At a certain point, you accept it's part of the class system and learn to live with it OR opt for a classless system for Max freedom.

Those are actual rules that have mechanical impact. (Admittedly the Oath part is weird when it comes to Cleric, but the Paladin at least gets to become an Oathbreaker so there's something there). These are RULES. Real rules.

"Will not wear metal armor" is a friggin' character quirk. It should be in the 'ideal and flaws' section fo your character sheet, it has no place in the proficiency section. It's 100% a belief or philosophy of the character and as such should be left up to the individual player to decide. Heck, even if in your setting druids who break the taboo are shunned and pelted with rotten fruits by their Enclave? That's still a choice the PC can make when they are fully aware of the consequences.

Heck, a Rogue can pick up a non-finesse weapon is they want, fully aware they will not be getting their Sneak Attack dice.

If you want to enforce an archetype through rules, you make it have an actual impact.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you can't do some Druid stuff in metal armor. That's a totally fine restriction and it enforces the archetype perfectly.

 

[Oofta]

No, they didn't. Applying a penalty but giving the player the choice is the clearest and most efficient way. "Druids wearing metal armor may not cast spells, use wild shape, and suffer disadvantage on X checks" is far better than a modron like lack of will.

That changes the rule significantly.

All sorts of religions have restrictions on what is allowed. This one sets druids apart and, to me, makes them something other than a nature cleric. As always if you don't like the rule just freakin' change it for your game or come up with a work-around.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If it's only a philosophical/belief reason, then that should 100% be in the hand of the players.

If you feel that, then provide other reason.

Though personally I really don't agree, if the belief reason was communicated before the class selection. Many different classes (clerics and paladins in particular) kinda expect the character to buy into certain belief systems. If the player doesn't want that, they simply can choose some other class.

 

[Oofta]

It is only about proficiency. Nothing else.

The designers didnt want the Druid to have proficiency with metal armor. But a multiclass Druid can wear metal armor because they get the proficiency from elsewhere.

But that's the whole point. It doesn't matter if they have proficiency from another source or not. Druids will not wear metal armor. I don't care if they're mountain dwarf fighter/druid, they won't wear metal armor.

It's not a question of proficiency.