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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

And they made that choice when they made the druid. That was the decision point.

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.

There are valid reasons to criticise the rule. But it is a rule and it is not unclear. "Druid will not wear metal armour." In a situation where the druid is wearing metal armour the rule has not been followed. This is not ambiguous.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.

But if you dont feel strongly about it, no need to talk to your DM ☺

 

[Undrave]

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.

Except that all of those have ACTUAL MECHANICS (well except the secret language things but those have actual in-universe rules applied with proper explanations!).

If you want Druids to not wear metal armor, then just... ya know, make an ACTUAL RULE that makes it a bad idea. make them lose a class feature if they were armor with higher AC bonus than Hide. It's not that difficult, the Monk and Barbarian have all of that right there! Same with the Rogue's weapon restriction.

Those are REAL rule, not some 'just because!' Gygaxian BS. Bleh.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Strongly worded fluff. Like alignment. Got it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

Just out of curiosity, do you always have strong opinions like this? Did you take any stance in the disintegrate/wildshape debate?

 

[Plaguescarred]

It's only a suggestion. This sage advice also make other suggestions not to take to the letter necessarily such as

"What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes." ☺

 

[Northern Phoenix]

But if you dont feel strongly about it, no need to talk to your DM ☺

Unless the DM feels strongly about it, in which case it'd be nice not to get mad about that. This thread is originally entitled "can your druids wear metal armor", after all. If the DM doesn't care, this will never come up. Guaranteed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

I was pointing out that "will" is used throughout the rulebook as natural language for rules- for deterministic rules, and for examples that even apply to PCs (such as ready).

The druid armor restriction is a deterministic rule. You will not do something. Period.

That's why you don't like it- which, again ... totally cool. There are tons of bad rules. Some rules are bad because people don't like the rule, some rules are bad because people don't like the implementation, and some rules are bad for both reasons. But it's kind of weird to see people say, "Yes, that rule is bad because it's ... not a rule! Ha! How you like dem apples!"

If you don't like it, get rid of it! Problem solved. But it doesn't seem that the last 18,496 posts by Max* have changed anyone's minds on the topic.


*Numbers are approximate, and yes, that's a joke.

 

[billd91]

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

You may think it's a dumb flavor bake-in, but things like druid, ranger, and paladin flavor have been successful for many years with many tables. Having what you consider dumb flavor and being a good game are not and never have been mutually exclusive.
And, no, using rule 0 to adjust the flavor for your table isn't really a problem.

Honestly, it's about time people did more to divorce their relatively minor preferences from any kind of claim of objective quality or whether or not a game is good or bad.

 

[Remathilis]

Except that all of those have ACTUAL MECHANICS (well except the secret language things but those have actual in-universe rules applied with proper explanations!).

If you want Druids to not wear metal armor, then just... ya know, make an ACTUAL RULE that makes it a bad idea. make them lose a class feature if they were armor with higher AC bonus than Hide. It's not that difficult, the Monk and Barbarian have all of that right there! Same with the Rogue's weapon restriction.

Those are REAL rule, not some 'just because!' Gygaxian BS. Bleh.

I'm actually in agreement that it's poorly worded, but not in the solution to the problem.

Given: The druid prohibition on metal armor is poorly worded.

Solution: redesign the rule to give a mechanical penalty to wearing it.

Not: druids can wear half-plate without penalty.

I'm for keeping the spirit of the rule, and if a larger stick is needed, so be it. I don't want people using this as an excuse to min/max into metal armors.