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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

It's not any less enforceable than any other rule. The rule say "X wont do Y." This is clear. X doing Y is not a valid action declarations under the rules. When you agreed to play this game, you presumably (at least implicitly) agreed to follow the rules of the game? Now in theory players can just declare that they will ignore the rules of the game and do what they want, but they can do that regarding any rule, and that is really not an issue with the game itself, it is an issue with the players or the group.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If they had done that, it would be a rule. I was actually rather surprised that they didn't do that. Prior editions had penalties for druids when wearing metal armor.

This is from 1e,

"The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

Do you see the differences between fluff like 5e has and a rule like 1e has? 1e says "unable," not "won't." It also has a mechanical penalty for violating it. Also, note that since there is a mechanical penalty, even in 1e the druid could put metal plate mail on if he wanted to. It would just prevent him from casting spells or shapechange. Even in 1e he didn't cease being a druid for the violation.

 

[SkidAce]

"...so busy deciding could you, you never asked, should you?"

Of course they can...but most of them don't..."insert your campaign reason here, i.e. its icky."

 

[Maxperson]

"...so busy deciding could you, you never asked, should you?"

Of course they can...but most of them don't..."insert your campaign reason here, i.e. its icky."

This I agree with. As I've said, I've never had a druid wear metal armor or even attempt it. Not one of mine, and not one of my players. That said, I could see some circumstances where a druid would do it if he found it necessary.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think the more important takeaway from that sage advice is two-fold.

1) They were not intended to lack proficiency. This is not a game balance concern.
2) The metal armor is entirely a flavor and theme concern.

Both of which contradict the table on pg 45 - but, yeah, consistency isn't necessary the hallmark of SA...

And in my experience, #2, should never be a rule. Trying to force a theme to be a rule, leads to problems.

True true. The whole debate, IMO, hinges on the fact that pg 45 and pg 65 aren't tightly congruent in their wording. And, thus, we have 32 pages and counting...

 

[Vaalingrade]

The rules tell you what is and isn't possible in the game; what can and cannot be done. This is consistent everywhere else in the books.

The druids entry however stays what a character will and will not do, not what they can or can't. And the character's choices are the purview of the player alone. This isn't like choosing a different die to roll to hit or whether you are suddenly capable of engaging a mechanic your character doesn't have access to. It is an in-universe choice that the character makes and that belongs to the player.

My fellow DMs, we literally have control over everything else in the world. the rulings not rules philosophy already makes engaging in the rules a game of Mother-May-I with us. There is no reason to take character choices, personalities and beliefs from the players.

 

[Maxperson]

If it was just fluff, it wouldn't be in the multiclass table as well.

Sure it would. A fluff taboo attached to a class will show up wherever that class does.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Your dumb flavor bake-in is someone else's class identity. It's why monks can't kung-fu in armor. It's why rogues can't sneak attack with a greatsword. It's why you can't learn Druidic or Thieves cant with the Linguist feat. It's why wizards don't have Cure Wounds on thier spell list. D&D has plenty of baked in assumptions. Accept, ignore, or find some other game.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Those are not in anyway the same usage of 'will' as the 'will not' in the Druid Armor restriction.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

My fellow DMs, we literally have control over everything else in the world. the rulings not rules philosophy already makes engaging in the rules a game of Mother-May-I with us. There is no reason to take character choices, personalities and beliefs from the players.

I can see where you're coming from, but there are certain types of characters I'd rather not have people run, and to me these are the extremely evil, the extremely contrarian, characters who hate other people and will never work with them, characters who don't want to take part and just want to stay as a baker or something unless someone literally drags them, and other such things. I'd guess most people have there own limits or lines, but very few DMs allow literally any type of character, bar none. The only difference is where those lines go or what exactly they are.