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

[Crimson Longinus]

Like what? Who else has to go on a quest to get a basic class feature like armor?

A lot of classes need to go on quest to get better gear than normal. Like that's basically the idea of magic items and other rare and expensive gear. Wizards need to quest for extra spells. Druids also need to go to see differnt animals to gain new wildshape forms. Are druid armour rules more limiting and do they make getting good armour harder for them than the rules of cleric? Yes. But rogue's rules also make getting good armour more difficult to them than for the cleric. Almost like differnt classes were meant to be different!

 

[Remathilis]

I can read the optional fluff just fine.

Please cite where this is labeled as an optional rule. The PHB is good about calling out optional rules (feats, multiclassing, using a grid) so please give me a page citation where this is labeled optional.

 

[Vaalingrade]

requoted snippet from Sage Advice for emphasis:
If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.

The problem with Rule 0 is that it a) is used to absolve bad rules b) assumes the DM is going to correctly identify bad rules/read the room.

Considering the number of DMs that constantly claim they and their groups are in constant agreement with what that DM is passionate about and/or their supreme power as DM, b is a bold assumption.

 

[Remathilis]

Can't they write?

I get that writing 'rules' meal-mouthed and in literally unenforceable manner that serves to empower the DM is a thing some people like, but let's not pretend this dumb 'rule' as written is unenforceable by RAW and as per Sage, by RAI.

So nothing hangs on it, it isn't enforced, and it's written as a mindset instead of a limitation. It's a rule in the same way not posting in giant text and bold and then adding condescension in normal size is a rule: it's a suggestion to establish a certain tone that's not codified.

Ok. Then the druid class needs to reinforce the prohibition on wearing metal or teaching the druidic language to others as a loss of spellcasting and inability to gain further levels until atonement.

Maybe the theoretical 50th anniversary core books with make this ironclad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Please cite where this is labeled as an optional rule. The PHB is good about calling out optional rules (feats, multiclassing, using a grid) so please give me a page citation where this is labeled optional.

Not optional, just unenforceable due to the terrible writing style. So less than optional because you just don't have to do it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok. Then the druid class needs to reinforce the prohibition on wearing metal or teaching the druidic language to others as a loss of spellcasting and inability to gain further levels until atonement.

Maybe the theoretical 50th anniversary core books with make this ironclad.

Or we just stop with dumb flavor bake-ins and try to make a good game instead.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a bit confused by your response here as it doesn't seem consistent with the position you previously established. Here, it seem that you now agree that if a player feels strongly about their druid to donning metal, as the Sage Advice clearly indicates, the player can speak to their DM and the DM can enact house rules on the matter. Yes?

Sure. How is that inconsistent with anything I have said. I have said that..

1. as written it's fluff, but strong fluff. That means that it won't be broken lightly, but can be broken by druid choice.
2. The Player and/or DM could feel very strongly about the matter and the DM might enact a house rule to punish violations of the taboo. paladin's have rules for this in place, but druids do not.

There's nothing contradictory or inconsistent with those statements. It's strongly worded fluff that might develop into more at the DM's decision.

 

[Maxperson]

Please cite where this is labeled as an optional rule. The PHB is good about calling out optional rules (feats, multiclassing, using a grid) so please give me a page citation where this is labeled optional.

It would have to be a rule in the first place for it to be an optional rule. I can't cite to something that doesn't exist. I can cite to where a piece of strongly worded fluff(all fluff of that nature being optional) about druids wearing metal armor is, though. It's on page 65 of the PHB.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's the only place in the game where a rule is worded as 'WILL' outside of maybe NPC rules! It's not following the same jargon established in any other rule in the game, and it's the only piece of imperative deterministic language anywhere.

There are numerous examples of "will" be used for NPCs. However ...


READY
Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction.
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it.


The use seems like a choice (the second part is specific that you choose); but the first part is clear that "will trigger" is deterministic.

NPC uses are everywhere- from how different groups react to you (such as in ideals and bonds) to deterministic actions of creatures-

ANIMATE DEAD/OBJECTS
....You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn

It's always used to indiciate deterministic mechanics (something that MUST happen)-

COMPULSION
...but it will provoke opportunity attacks ...
MAGIC MOUTH
... will trigger the spell ... etc. etc. etc.


Will is used in multiple ways in the "natural language" rules-
Willing / unwilling.
Will (as in willpower).
Will (as in deterministic mechanics).

Again, I agree that it's a weird rule, a throwback rule, and a rule that some people don't like. But the arguments that it isn't a rule are just weird. Bad rules can be bad, or poorly implemented, and still be rules. If it was just fluff, it wouldn't be in the multiclass table as well.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

2. The Player and/or DM could feel very strongly about the matter and the DM might enact a house rule to punish violations of the taboo. paladin's have rules for this in place, but druids do not.

I'm sorry, but that is a very strained interpretation in an effort to reverse the meaning of the Sage Advice sentence:
If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.

Your position is clear enough on this . Thanks.