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

[PsyzhranV2]

The Druids lack the proficiency with metal armor, because they just decide to never learn it.

The nonproficiency is relevant to Druid spellcasting. Generally, if Druids wear metal armor, they become unable to cast Druid spells.

5e's proficiency rules do not imply that. That is something you, and only you, are reading into it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One is armor that you're encasing your body with that you will not use if you're a druid and the other is a weapon which you have no problem using.

You encase your body to use a shield? That's bizzare, most shields I've seen you hold with a strap.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's all about the look and feel bro.

So it looks perfectly fine to have a druid holding an iron staff, wearing iron rings, with iron soled boots, and wearing an iron circlet.... but give them an iron shield and it is totally the wrong look for them?

That, again, makes no sense.

 

[Yaarel]

5e's proficiency rules do not imply that. That is something you, and only you, are reading into it.

The 5e rules say no explanation of any kind whatsoever.

Only players whose heads are stuck in previous editions of D&D would assume there might be some kind of rationale.

All 5e says is: Druid: Proficiencies: Armor: medium armors yes, but metal ones no.

The only thing that 5e says is a simple mechanic. There is no 5e flavor whatsoever attached to this straightforward mechanic.

In 5e, a Wizard can spellcast in armor if proficient. A Cleric can use sharp weapons if proficient. A Cleric can disavow a deity. A Paladin can break an oath. A Druid can cast in metal armor ... if proficient.

 

[pogre]

I have found the metal armor restrictions to be rather disruptive, we have largely ignored this at my tables. To start with what defines "metal armor"? Is studded leather metal? Almost all middle age shields are primarily wooden IRL, maybe some bucklers were metal, but no other metal shields existed. In the far east IRL there was wooden armor that would most approximate half-plate, breast plate or splint mail.

Also in terms of story or theme, if a Paladin can go against his oath and become an oathbreaker or an asimar become fallen, why can't a druid wear metal?

Just a stupid rule IMO and it does not seem to add much flavor IMO since he can swing a metal scimitar and seems to have no problem adventuring with the guy wearing chainmail. Also as a tree-hugger I would find it somewhat silly to say - "sure you can cut down that tree and make me some armor, but no metal"

What do you think?

Trying to find logical consistency in the D&D rules is going to be pretty tough at times. It certainly is a legacy rule, and a flavor thing, perhaps with a smidge of game balance (but, probably not). I don't mind it - I am used to it - if a DM announced Druids can wear metal armor at their table it would be fine with me. I don't think I have ever had a druid player complain about it.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

So it looks perfectly fine to have a druid holding an iron staff, wearing iron rings, with iron soled boots, and wearing an iron circlet.... but give them an iron shield and it is totally the wrong look for them?

That, again, makes no sense.

I wouldn't want Druids to do any of that either personally, but since those do not have special mechanical impact, there's less to argue about.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The 5e rules say no explanation of any kind whatsoever.

Only players whose heads are stuck in previous editions of D&D would assume there might be some kind of rationale.

All 5e says is: Druid: Proficiencies: Armor: medium armors yes, but metal ones no.

The only thing that 5e says is a simple mechanic. There is no 5e flavor whatsoever attached to this straightforward mechanic.

In 5e, a Wizard can spellcast in armor if proficient. A Cleric can use sharp weapons if proficient. A Cleric can disavow a deity. A Paladin can break an oath. A Druid can cast in metal armor ... if proficient.

Then all I can say is that your understanding of English is extremely different from that of everybody else in this thread.

 

[Yaarel]

A fighter has never worn full plate made out of crystal. Are they proficient in it?

Has every single fighter, paladin, cleric, and ranger worn a suit dragonscale armor? Because they are all proficient in it.

How about adamantium armor? Mithril Armor? Does every single fighter wear full plate made of adamantium at some point in their lives? Because, according to your logic, if they don't, they can't be proficient in it.

The Fighter is proficient with "ALL" armor. An Eldritch Knight can spellcast in "ALL" armor.

The situation is different from the Druid.

The Druid lacks proficiency in metal armor therefore cannot spellcast in it.

 

[Faolyn]

Sage Advice:
"Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to."

Druids can wear metal armor − but are not proficient in it. The class chooses to not be proficient with it.

But a character can become proficient with it by other means. Including a feat.

Some Hindus eat meat.

I literally have no idea how you can read this as saying "they choose not to be proficient." That's like saying that a fighter that only uses a longsword is choosing to not be proficient in greataxes. Preferences are not proficiencies.

It seems to be, the 5e designers (initially) removed special materials because of bounded accuracy. By design, plate armor is the highest AC value. Magic item bonuses were rarified. I am less sure how true that is today, especially when official adventures are generous with magic items.

For the Druid armors, the materials dont need to be better than normal metal, they just need to be nonmetal.

I wasn't talking about special materials that give bonuses to attacks or damage. I was talking about special materials like silver, which gives no bonuses (or penalties, despite silver being a softer material than steel or iron) but can be used to bypass certain damage resistances. They have some, but not enough.

 

[Faolyn]

The difference is. For the Wizard weapons, the materials that the weapon types are made out of doesnt matter. A dagger might be steel, bronze, quartz, obsidian, or "ironwood".

But for the Druid armors, the materials that the armor types are made out of do matter.

The Druid armor proficiencies explicitly exclude metal materials. The Druid would be proficient with a breastplate made out of nonmetal "ironwood".

They really, really do not. Otherwise, they would have clearly said "they are proficient in Medium armor that is not made of metal."