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

[Faolyn]

The same future-tense verb applies to the proficiency too.

The Druids will wear nonmetal armors proficiently, but will not wear metal armors proficiently.

You once again failed to answer my question: if a PC who starts out with proficiency in medium or heavy armor--since there is no proficiency in metal armor--becomes a druid, do they lose that proficiency?

Again: there is no such thing as proficiency in metal armor. "Metal armor" is not a class of armor.

 

[Maxperson]

Your dumb flavor bake-in is someone else's class identity. It's why monks can't kung-fu in armor.

The need to be able to freely move. Armor restricts that movement and prevents kung-fu.

It's why rogues can't sneak attack with a greatsword.

Because it's a rather large slashing weapon that can't be aimed with the precision required of sneak attack.

It's why you can't learn Druidic or Thieves cant with the Linguist feat.

This is fluff like druids and armor, yes. There's also no rule preventing anyone else from learning it. Heck, any class can pick it with DM persmission(PHB PG 123). The only reason you'd need permission is that it's a secret language, not one unlearnable by anyone who isn't a druid.

It's why wizards don't have Cure Wounds on thier spell list.

Because the list doesn't have it. Nothing actually prevents a PC wizard from researching a healing spell in 5e. In 1e and 2e healing was reserved for divine magic, but 3e did away with that when it gave cures to arcane bards and other arcane classes/prestige classes.

D&D has plenty of baked in assumptions. Accept, ignore, or find some other game.

Those are usually rules, though. And there's usually solid reasoning behind them, such as with rogues backstabbing with greatswords and monks trying to kung-fu in armor. Those reasons actually prevent the thing in question. Taboos, though, don't have any such preventions or any penalties for violation.

 

[Oofta]

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 as enforceable as any other rule in the book. There's this word called "no". Typically coinciding with a conversation about following the rules of the game unless the DM has created a specific house rule.

 

[Faolyn]

The narrative lever is that it says a Druid will not wear metal armor. Wearing armor doesn't make them an ex-druid, but they have to stop being a druid before they can wear metal armor. It's crappy, and I'd sure as hell change it, but it's not unclear.

It's very unclear, because nothing says that they will stop or have to stop being a druid while they wear metal armor.

I can very easily see metal armor being a druid taboo. But in that case, it should be presented in the same way that paladin's oaths are presented, with actual rules as to what happens if you break that oath.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

What happens if a Paladin of Redemption goes around cutting off the hands and feet of peasants and fashions a necklace out of them? There really are no explicit penalties or consequences. Just suggestions. Would a DM who objects to that behavior be a tyrant who is removing player agency with a straightjacket?

They suffer consequences as outlined in the section regarding violating their oath. But they can choose to violate it. Unlike the druid, whose only tenant is "will not wear metal armor", and is the one and only immutable law of the universe.

To be clear, I would much prefer the "druids explode if they wear metal armor" over "druids will not wear metal armor" text.

 

[Maxperson]

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


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...

We also have page 164, which matches page 65. So two versions of one and only one of the other.

 

[Plaguescarred]

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.

Yes DMs can feel strongly about anything in their game and nerf it. I was saying that with a tongue in cheek loll

To me the thread title question was more about RAW than DM fiat.

 

[Maxperson]

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


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.

Ever since 1e the druid has been able to wear metal armor without ceasing to be a druid. There were actual mechanical penalties for it in 1e, but it could be done.

 

[Maxperson]

Strongly worded fluff. Like alignment. Got it.

Exactly. Alignment is just a fluff RP aid.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I did and the current Sage Advice matches my position. By RAW the druid dusts, but I wouldn't do it that way in my game, because it's not cool or the intent behind the spell.