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

[Faolyn]

So, while we're discussing the druid's quirks: allowing non-druids learning the druidic language: yay or nay?

I think that this would fall under "you need a very good reason to learn druidic if you're not a druid." Because I find it hard to believe that if you were raised by druids (but didn't become one) or worked very, very closely with druids (like, if you were a ranger or Feylock) that you wouldn't pick up at least a few words.

...What D&D really needs is levels of language proficiency, rather than assuming perfect fluency. When I ran Ravenloft in GURPS, we had a lot with that.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

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

The way i see it, this is a natural part of the game, the books make this clear time and time again. "Make it your own", and variations on a theme, are all over every section related to running the game, after all. This shouldn't be an aspect of the game that is uniquely feared and shunned on a forum like this, in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

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

And hasn't since 1e. Even in 1e they could wear metal armor without ceasing to be a druid. They just lost their magical powers.

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.

They should have just done the above, but I think they didn't for the same reason that wizards can now cast spells in plate mail.

 

[Undrave]

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).

Ready action are still the choice of the PC. You pick what you are waiting for and if that event doesn't happen you wasted your action getting ready. There's no arbitrary taking away a character's agency and there is clear mechanics behind it.

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.

I don't oppose to the spirit of the rule either. Make it so a Druid has to keep into more primitive looking armor. Fine by me. But give it actual mechanics. Either you just limit their proficiencies to 'light armor, hide armor' or you make certain of the class features just no work when wearing certain armor.

And then add actual rules about exotic armor material somewhere...geez.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that this would fall under "you need a very good reason to learn druidic if you're not a druid." Because I find it hard to believe that if you were raised by druids (but didn't become one) or worked very, very closely with druids (like, if you were a ranger or Feylock) that you wouldn't pick up at least a few words.

...What D&D really needs is levels of language proficiency, rather than assuming perfect fluency. When I ran Ravenloft in GURPS, we had a lot with that.

5e explicitly allows non-druids to learn it with DM approval. Probably because the designers view it the same way you and I do.

"With your DM's permission, you can instead choose a language from the Exotic Languages table or a secret language, such as thieves' cant or the tongue of druids"

Heck, it's not any harder to learn than draconic or undercommon(deep speech).

 

[CleverNickName]

Woah...34 pages of comments, all because of an 11-word rule in the Player's Handbook? That's wild. So let's summarize, for those who are just joining the thread, and might not have the fortitude to read through almost 700 comments.

-----

1. The rule being discussed is "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." (PHB, pg. 64)

2. Certain people in this thread do not like this rule, for a variety of reasons. The majority of these reasons are:

• They feel it's too restrictive
• They feel it's outdated
• They would have preferred it have game mechanics (penalties, etc.)
• They would have preferred it be phrased differently

3. Those who don't like it can be divided into two groups: those who house-rule it (I will call them the Rule Benders), and those who claim it isn't a rule at all (let's call them the Rule Deniers). Everyone else either likes the rule or doesn't have a strong opinion about it, and so they play it as-written (the Rule Purists.)

4. The Rule Benders have listed many reasons why they don't like the rule, and suggested different work-arounds. The majority of these are:

• Ignore it entirely and let druids wear whatever they like
• Let the player decide if it's a religious, ethical, or physical restriction, if any
• Allow non-metallic armor materials (both historical and fantastical)
• Swap the druid's armor proficiency for something else (Unarmored Defense ability, for example)
• Add mechanical penalties (loss of spellcasting, etc.) when wearing metal
• Minor variations and combinations of the above

5. The Rule Deniers have presented their own arguments, most of which are:

• It's not a rule because of the way its phrased (i.e., "will" vs. "can't")
• It's not a rule because it's different from other rules
• It's not a rule because it tampers with player agency
• It's not a rule because they don't want it to be a rule
• It's not a rule because it's actually something else (a taboo, an ethos, a philosophy, etc.)

6. The Rule Purists are struggling to understand how this even became an issue:

• It's very clearly a rule, and a simple one at that.
• It has always been "a druid thing" since the earliest editions
• The rule's impact on the game is minimal

For my part: I'm a Rule Bender that allows non-metallic armor materials. But I'm aligned with the Rule Purists and share their sentiments.

 

[Faolyn]

Hypothetical scenario. Bob joins the group and during our session 0 tells a quick story about how he's integrating into the campaign and that he grew up loving nature.

In this particular case, Bob is showing that he has no respect for the DM's rules and isn't willing to compromise, and flaunting it as well. This indicates toxic behavior that will likely come up in other situations. In this case, it's these red flags that warrant kicking Bob, not the "rules" breaking.

But honestly, I can't imagine any player who would turn down armor made of something non-metallic but cool-looking in favor of shiny, shiny, boring metal (assuming it granted the same AC) unless they were going for a very specific look, like a knight in shining armor. Or were playing a dwarf druid of the mountains and Underdark, where metal armor would actually be very in-theme. (Although there, I would imagine something more like hammered raw metal ingots sewn on cloth or leather, not a shiny breastplate and greaves.)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Because people can parse out intent, and rightly question janky rules, particularly in an edition rife with lazy, err, naturalistic language. The rules for stealth, illumination, and darkness are a complete mess, to the point where RAW you can't see a guy carrying a torch in a dark area.

If Speak with Dead had been misprinted as Speak with Dad, would you only allow it to contact someone's father?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So you're saying that he's the druid class with all the druid abilities and spells, but not a druid at the same time? Because he wouldn't lose a single class ability or even be inhibited in those abilities by the armor. There's no sidebar like paladins get explaining what happens for violating their oath. An oath by the way is stronger language than, "Won't wear metal armor." If paladins can violate their oath, druids can violate their choice not to wear armor, and with no penalty!

I guess other druids might not consider him one while his armor is on. He wouldn't cease to be the druid class, though.

Nope. They would have said that as well. Their lack of putting in such language in either the PHB lore or lore clarification means that no such penalty exists.

Exactly. I genuinely just cannot stand the sort of iamverysmart, needlessly verbose, “let me reference philosophers so you know how educated I am”, language of that post, soI didn’t bother replying to it, but you hit the mail on the head.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If it said 'can' instead of 'will', this thread would just be about whether it was a dumb rule or not.