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

[DammitVictor]

So, this restriction against metal armor for druids is primarily a "fluff thing" and... like most D&D "fluff things" it wasn't very well thought out, and it took a very narrow historical/literary inspiration and applied it very broadly in a "one size fits nothing" sort of fashion. (See the history of clerics and bludgeoning weapons, for example.)

Problem is, if you just shrug and allow druids to wear any armor they want-- you're going to see all your druids in half-plate automatically, and we don't want that, not because it's "overpowered", but because it's weird and it doesn't fit our idea of what a druid is supposed to look like.

Personally, I think D&D could stand to do with a crash course on spiritual taboos that aren't based around punitive consequences, but the character's inability to make the decision to break them. A druid will not wear metal armor. Wearing armor doesn't make them an ex-druid, they have to become an ex-druid to make the decision to wear metal armor. Maybe the one (and only) druid taboo isn't a great example for this, but this is ripe territory for warlocks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The rules were preventing the player's actions, not me. You're arguing with a sheet of paper.

Tell you what: quote this message, add another "so what you're really saying here is..." twist to it, and let me know if the ink on page 65 of the Player's Handbook changes.

The rules don't prevent the player from wearing metal armor. The designers stated that fairly clearly in the Sage Advice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Stoneskin is good, but it's a concentration spell. It precludes a lot of the other things that make druids cool. It'd be nice if there was a middle ground.

I think I’d go for better damage mitigation, myself. Or a spell that gives them regen, though it would have to be at least 3rd level.

Maybe drop medium armor and gain damage reduction for all damage scaling with Druid level?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The fact that players exist that are so toxic to the "house rules" that are at the core of 5Es ruling design is the reason these arguments get so spicey. I'm not surprised that less confident DMs hide behind arguing "RAW" when a player tries to browbeat them, but really, the discussion should go like this and no further: "Can i use metal armor?" "No" "OK".

And yet we also have DMs who are stating that they will kick players and that they can't even imagine a player bringing p the question because that is breaking the rules, when the designers of the game themselves said it was a flavor choice, and not a rule.

Think we've had a lot of discussions why DMs who unilaterally decide the flavor of a PCs character aren't exactly in the right.

 

[DammitVictor]

Flavor choices are rules. Every single flavor choice is. And, likewise, rules color flavor.

 

[Oofta]

And yet we also have DMs who are stating that they will kick players and that they can't even imagine a player bringing p the question because that is breaking the rules, when the designers of the game themselves said it was a flavor choice, and not a rule.

Think we've had a lot of discussions why DMs who unilaterally decide the flavor of a PCs character aren't exactly in the right.

I expect players to follow the rules of the game unless they clear it with the DM first. It doesn't matter if I'm DM or a player in someone else's game.

I feel sorry for any DM if a player feels otherwise. It's an uncomfortable situation not only for the DM, but in the few times I experienced it (I was not the DM), for the other players as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's opposite really; the fact that it has mechanical impact is the reason people seem to care so much about what would otherwise just be a flavor thing. Now, i could be wrong, i admit, but i am guessing that there are far less people willing to fight over their character looking like they are wearing metal than there are people willing to fight over that precious +2 AC.

Well, you'd be surprised by me then. Because yeah, even before I saw the numbers, I saw "will not use metal shields" and "will use metal weapons" and was utterly confused because that makes no sense.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The concept of the Fighter class is they become proficient with many different kinds of weapons, so as to adapt to any kind of weapon at hand. Similarly armors. Obviously, materials dont matter for the Fighter proficiencies. Whether the Fighter wears armor made out of wood or dense fur or dragon scales, is irrelevant to proficiency.

But, for the Druid, the material does matter. The Druid doesnt use metal armor. Exactly why the Druid wont is unexplained, and actually, is conflictive with the other themes and features of the Druid class that do use metal.

There is no special "standard" for the Druid, because the no-metal rule seems to contradict the rest of the features and themes of the Druid class.

There is only a special "rule" for the Druid: no metal. Why not? I dont think the designers thought carefully about why not in 5e.

Why yes to metal weapons and metal magic, but no to metal armor?

The prohibition is a less sensible rule. It seems to be interfering with the character concepts of players. For me, this disruptiveness is a significant problem. As a DM, it interferes with other settings. Altho a player at the time, I mentioned a situation where the Druid was permanently in the Underdark regional setting, where the earth magic − including metal − became a prevailing Druid theme. The no-metal armor became increasingly nonsensical while advancing many levels underground.

So, you are backing away from your previous explanation. That's fine.

I agree that it conflicts with various interesting concepts for druids (see my post where I mention a dwarven star druid who made armor and weapons out of meteoric iron that they gathered) which is why I find the blanket rule so poor as to be harmful to the game.

I've actually been playing a druid who was given metal armor by a party member as a gift. He's been wearing it nearly the entire game. To the point where the other player forgot he'd given it to me as a gift. At no point has my character felt or seemed like less of druid because he is in metal armor. In fact, it has pretty much never come up. So, I find the entire rule pointless and serving no purpose. Worse still, it is a rule meant to enforce a preference that people may not share, and gives DMs excuses to enforce their preferences on players.

 

[J.Quondam]

I think I mentioned it earlier, but this has turned into a long and interminable thread.

I think I would make it a second level slot, give it 8 hour duration, and make it a buff that can add to existing AC. If this was the "Druid AC Solution" TM I would probably also eliminate medium armor proficiency? I don't know... I'm not a game designer.... just a player, but I think it's going in the right direction.

Give it a week-long duration, let it provide a +6 obstinacy bonus to AC, and call it "thick skull", and it'll magically conjured this thread.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's opposite really; the fact that it has mechanical impact is the reason people seem to care so much about what would otherwise just be a flavor thing. Now, i could be wrong, i admit, but i am guessing that there are far less people willing to fight over their character looking like they are wearing metal than there are people willing to fight over that precious +2 AC.

It's more about a dumb piece of flavor text shoved into a rules text that tells you what your character thinks.

It's basically like declaring that Fighters will not use Ranged weapons or Barbarians only eat keto so they will not eat bread, then the DM gleefully describes you dying from an exhaustion stack because the party looted a burning bakery on their way out into the wilderness. There's not even a penalty to it, the 'ruling' is just that there's a preternatural compulsion based on the abstract class you the player picked to represent your character's power set.