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

[Undrave]

So would you allow a cleric of Torm (LG - Courage, self-sacrifice) to select the Death Domain without penalty? After all, domains are just "suggested" for deities and there is no alignment restrictions on domains.

Sure? Why not? Maybe they'll be treated as an heretic or a crazy cultist, whatever.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

There you go placing 100% of the blame for your house rules and your fiat on the player who wants to use their class abilities within the parts of 5e not borked like barkskin or left on the cutting room floor like alternate armor materials. Wotc designed the rest of the class abilities with a power level fitting with the assumption that 15+dex(2) standing ac from half plate was easy to obtain for 750gp but wants to have it both ways without adjusting the class abilities & spells or providing the secondary systems like alternate materials, that's not the player's fault nor is the player being toxic for saying they will use something they are proficient at. The player doesn't need to ask "Can I use metal armor" because they already can.

No one needs a certain amount of armor to play the game, especially not any of the spell casting classes. With a little less armor, you get hit a few more times. It's not a big deal, and the idea that it absolutely is is a toxic attitude in a very "competitive DnD" way. If the player doesn't want to ask, the conversion instead goes like this: "Oh, Druids can't use metal armor, just so you know" "why" "It doesn't fit the game" "OK".

 

[ECMO3]

Heck, why not just have all classes proficient in all weapons and armor?

But Druids already are proficient in metal armor, they just are not allowed to wear it. Two different things.

Also technically that Wizard can don plate armor even though he is not proficient, so this analogy is off. A Wizard who is not proficient is still allowed to wear half plate (and suffer the penalties associated with such) and a Druid who is proficient can't.

That may not happen often, but it is an option. At the end of an advneturing day, when you are out of spells and low on hps the Wizard can actually borrow the Paladin's plate, or take it of the BBEG you just killed and wear it for the rest of the day, getting all the bonuses of such.

 

[carkl3000]

Imagine a bunch of people are creating characters. And lets say this armour restriction doesn't exist. What are the chances that a druid player chooses their character to have a metal armour and what are the chances that they want to have an iron staff? Because it they understand the rules, they will get the metal armour. It simply is better. Or if they feel it doesn't suit the themes of their character and are super committed to that, they might intentionally nerf their own character for looks, but this is unlikely. They would have absolutely zero incentive to ask for an iron staff.

What if it's an enchanted iron staff that gets dropped in a loot pile? I, as a hypothetical druid character player, would totally be interested.

The themes and looks of archetypes should matter, and the rules should not incentivise choices that are contrary to those themes.

I agree, but there's a difference between hard rules that attempt to affect game balance and soft rules that are meant to advance character development and plot lines.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This thread is so weird.

I always assumed the rule was because druids were a bunch of worthless hippies that listened to jam bands.

And everyone knows that hippies … hate …. metal.

 

[tetrasodium]

No one needs a certain amount of armor to play the game, especially not any of the spell casting classes. With a little less armor, you get hit a few more times. It's not a big deal, and the idea that it absolutely is is a toxic attitude in a very "competitive DnD" way. If the player doesn't want to ask, the conversion instead goes like this: "Oh, Druids can't use metal armor, just so you know" "why" "It doesn't fit the game" "OK".

How'd that argument go the last time you told a fighter they don't need plate so you weren't going to sell it? Would you accuse him of being "toxic" when he goes looking for it anyways at some point or is tat put down reserved exclusively for druids who want to use armor they are proficient in?

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding the D&D tradition that causes this confusion in 5e, it is an incoherent tradition. The Druid is an elementalist, who masters earth magic, including metal magic, and uses metal weapons proficiently. Metal tools too. To be unwilling to use metal armor, but be great at metal magic and metal weapons, is inexplicable.

Indeed, the words "will not" are a conspicuous absence of the flavor that is necessary to explain, why not?

Probably, the game works better (at least more coherently) to drop the metal prohibition from the Druid proficiencies.



Part of the problem is the way 5e delays the choice of the specialization archetype until a higher level for some classes. For the Druid class, the choice of circle defers until level 2. At least, I would enjoy the game more if every class had some way to choose the archetype at level 1.

For the Cleric class, the choice of domain happens at level 1, and different domains grant different armor proficiencies. The same would work well for the Druid class. One circle that focuses on animals and beast magic might only gain proficiencies for armor made from animals. But an other circle that focuses on the earth element might even require only metal armor. And so on.

If the armor proficiency is called out thematically, should the same theme apply to weapon proficiency too? Maybe, the metal-shirking Druids should only use weapons of bone, horn, and ivory? Like the Shillelagh cantrip for a wood club, maybe the Druid can have other cantrips to wield these beastly weapons magically.



If there is a mechanic − especially an unusual mechanic − there needs to be a flavor to go with it to make sense of it.

And this flavor needs to be flexible, and adaptable, to use for different kinds of character concepts in different kinds of settings. By itself, the prohibition against metal armor (and only the armor) is too peculiar to be useful for other settings and other character concepts.

 

[carkl3000]

Heh. It is funny how the moderate reading is opposed by both minimalists and the maximalists.

The moderate reading is. The Druid class lacks proficiency with metal armor − so get the wanted proficiency from elsewhere like D&D normally does.

But the minimalist reading is. They do have proficiency with metal armor, so they can flagrantly wear it without penalty.

The maximalist reading. The Druids "will not" wear metal armor under any circumstance − so that no exceptions of any kind whatsoever are possible! Ever! Heh, so that this one poorly worded isolated sentence somehow becomes more important than the rest of D&D 5e put together. No exceptions!!!!11!!1!!!!!11111!



Go back to the moderate reading. This is how D&D 5e works. Each class grants some proficiencies but not others. If a character concept needs a specific proficiency, then get it from an other silo. This is how normal 5e works.

The Druid class grants light and medium armors, except if they are made from metal. So get the metal proficiency from elsewhere.



The rules do say there is a penalty if a Druid wears metal armor. The Druid becomes unable to cast Druid spells because of wearing nonproficient armor. That is a heavy punishment. But, the lack of proficiency is easily obviated by picking the proficiency up from elsewhere, so as to become proficient with metal armor.

I agree it would be very reasonable if that's what the rules said, but unfortunately, they really don't say that. I'd be cool with it as a houserule though!

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So, the issue is entirely your own taste, and the fact that it has a mechanical impact giving you a reason to enforce your own taste on your players.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree it would be very reasonable if that's what the rules said, but unfortunately, they really don't say that. I'd be cool with it as a houserule though!

I read the rules to really say the Druid is nonproficient with metal armor.

But the wording is poor, terse, and lacks either flavor, theme, explanation, or context to make sense of it.

So, how the rest of D&D 5e works becomes an important context to consider.

Sometimes, the law needs to be interpreted according to the most helpful interpretation. The least helpful interpretation is often ... the least helpful.