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

[Plaguescarred]

Will not =/= cannot. Will not = choice. Choice = PCs can opt to wear it or opt not to wear it.

Just like when my wife goes on a diet ☺

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rules don't prevent the player from wearing metal armor.

True. The players can wear what they want. Rules however prevent druid characters from wearing metal armour.

The designers stated that fairly clearly in the Sage Advice.

You're massively misinterpreting the sage advice. Crawford at no point says it is not a rule, they merely explain why it is a rule.

And if it was so important to have other armor materials, they would have included rules for it. And if this was about mechanics, then the Sage Advice wouldn't have directly stated that this was never a balance issue.

As noted, alternate material is one of the minor quirk for magical items. So that at least is an existing rule.

I also notice that you ignored my question at the end. Do you think druids would hate the undead, because they are unnatural.

See, most people would say that yes, Druids would hate the undead, because they are unnatural beings that defy the cycle of life and death in the world. And yet, we have the spore druid. A druid that creates undead.

A theme of druids, subverted by a more specific druid. Because, while themes are important, there are many different ways to interpret themes. And players should be free to make their own decisions on what their characters believe.

I would have no issue with a druid subclass lifting the no-metal restriction. What I have an issue with is druids becoming de facto metal half-plate wearers as a default.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But there is no penalty for breaking the rule. A rule with no penalty = optional guideline.

That's absurd. So at your table players can just ignore the printed rules in the books, cheat all they like?

 

[Plaguescarred]

True. The players can wear what they want. Rules however prevent druid characters from wearing metal armour.


You're massively misinterpreting the sage advice. Crawford at no point says it is not a rule, they merely explain why it is a rule.

Anyone in the game can wear any armor. Sage Advice says Druid don't lack the ability so they also can. They just won't.

Sage Advice: Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But first, I want to briefly address something no one has brought up regarding the argument @Yaarel is making that druids lack proficiency in metal armor. Based only on the PHB, this is not as absurd as it appears. Here's what page 45 says:

View attachment 141609

The chart says that their proficiencies are in nonmetal light and medium armor and shields. This is not the same as what page 65 (under the druid class entry) says. While I think the stronger interpretation is to make the class entry primary and say this table is just making a functional summary, that does mean this table is technically incorrect. It is also reasonable to take the interpretation that the table is clarifying the actual mechanical rule, and the entry in the class is including a bit of fluff explaining the reason they mechanically lack proficiency in metal armors. The benefit of the latter interpretation is that neither entry is actually incorrect, they are simply talking about different things.

You know what? I am convinced. That is a valid reading! Not the only and most obvious one, but still a valid possibility. And considering that it is is less headachey, and resolves agency and and 'but what if someone puts metal armour on them against their will?' issues, it might be preferable to go with it!

I would like to understand why those who see it differently do so.

For those who don't have an issue based on player agency, could you provide some other examples of player-agency issues that you would have an issue with? And/or some other examples of restrictions that seem even stronger than the druid armor one that you would also not have a problem with? I'm trying to figure out if there is a general lack of compatibility on perception of player agency issues, or if the issue is being viewed differently by different people.

For instance, if you want to preserve class identity, and prefer druids don't wear metal armor, I'm on your side. No need to fight me. If you think there might be a balance issue, I'm not strongly attached to any view. Again, not your opponent on that. If you're just trying to make it clear what the rules are in the book, I agree that the stronger reading is that "will not" is a rule. What I want to get at is how you feel about the player-agency issue in isolation from every other issue.

I think it has been explained fairly well why many of us see it as a problem. It does something nothing else in the entire game does--it prevents us from making a choice to violate a character's initial beliefs during the game and face the consequences (whatever those might be). This doesn't make any sense from a religious perspective. Even the most devout religious people violate their beliefs on occasion due to human imperfections, regardless of how much effort they put into not doing so. Many people change religious beliefs. In D&D, angels can fall and fiends can rise. It seems odd to say that members of the druidic faith (or character class) are literally incapable of choosing to change their beliefs or give in to temptations to violate them. I'm sure it was correct at one point to say that a fallen D&D angel "would not" do evil acts, and that a risen fiend "would not" do good acts. But they changed over time. How are druids different?

How I see it is that all D&D classes come with certain amount of lore that assumes certain actions on part of the characters. Clerics pray to the gods to gain spells, wizards have to study spellbooks etc. And the player knew this when they chose that class. The willingly signed up for it. So that's why I don't think it is a terrible agency violation to expect them to follow these things they willingly chose. The armour restriction is the same. Druids not wearing metal is a part of being the druid, and the player chose to accept this when they made a druid. Them suddenly not being OK with this would be the same than a wizard player deciding that their character thinks that reading is boring and dumb and they no longer will study any spellbooks. And yes, as certainly has become apparent in this thread, the druid armour rule is not explained very well, and there are many ways it could be formulated better, but I have no big problem with the basic concept.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Anyone in the game can wear any armor. Sage Advice says Druid don't lack the ability so they also can. They just won't.

Sage Advice: Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it.

Yes, they won't. And that's a rule. I perfectly understand people no liking this, what I don't understand is them not understanding this!

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yes, they won't. And that's a rule. I perfectly understand people no liking this, what I don't understand is them not understanding this!

It's a story element not a rule. This Sage Advice also makes it clear. If it was a rule, the answer would have been MUCH different. And If they would have intended to make Druid non-proficient with metal armor, they would have wrote the class entry also differently. They specifically didn't want it to be a rule. It's fluff at it's best!

Sage Advice: Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's a story element not a rule. This Sage Advice also makes it clear. If it was a rule, the answer would have been MUCH different. And If they would have intended to make Druid non-proficient with metal armor, they would have wrote the class entry also differently. They specifically didn't want it to be a rule. It's fluff at it's best!

Sage Advice: Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design.

No! It is a rule, that exists because of a story element. That there is fluff explanation for the existence of the rule doesn't stop it being a rule!
(Also, sage advice is not rules to begin with.)

Also, let's not omit this bit:

Sage Advice: If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class.

I.e. it is a rule, and you need GM's permission to ignore it.

 

[Oofta]

This is an extrapolation, and a houserule, not what’s in the actual book.

The actual text in the book is a fluff statement with no weight, and no way to enforce it without a houserule. A Druid won’t do the thing…ok, if I’m playing a straight PHB Druid with no alteration of the character concept, no differing concept of druids, no deviation from the default lore of classes whatsoever, which I would find incredibly odd and stifling, I…still have to generate a houserule to stop a Druid player from putting metal armor on.

If a player has their PC put on metal armor, I know that PC is not a druid no matter what their character sheet says because druids will not wear metal armor.

Feel free to ignore the rule from the PHB at your table.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

There is no mechanical impact to wearing metal armor.

Quite the opposite, there is a mechanical impact to not wearing it (slightly lower AC), hence the passion with which people take to this debate.