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

[Snarf Zagyg]

For some reason, that comment is hilarious alongside your avatar.

....it's not tea......

 

[Maxperson]

So there has been 1 time when Druids have been prevented from wearing metal armor. In 2e.

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)." - Can put it on and don't cease being druids, but cannot use magical powers while doing so.

2e: "Unlike the cleric, the druid is allowed to use only ”natural” armors-leather armor and wooden shields, including those with magical enhancements. All other armors are forbidden to him. His weapons are limited to club, sickle, dart, spear, dagger, scimitar, sling, and staff." - prohibits metal armor, does not say druids cease being druids if they put it on anyway.

3e: "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spelllike class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter." - back to 1e style where you can put it in, don't cease being a druid, but lose magical powers.

4e: I don't know, but I highly doubt they were prevented from putting it on or ceased being a druid.

5e: It's a taboo with no penalties for putting it on. Nothing says they cease being a druid, which has never in any edition been a penalty for breaking this taboo. A draconian DM could enact that never before seen penalty, but it would be a house rule to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, it's very clearly a rule. It's in the rules section of the Druid class, in the bullet list under "Proficiencies", next to armor. It's as much a rule as the druid having medium armor proficiency. (shrug) The "taboo vs. rules" angle is new to me, but that's fine. I can create a different category for that.

EDIT: List updated.

It's in that section, because the only other place for it was up in the first portion that many people never bother to read. It's a strong taboo, so it had to be put in next to the rules with wording indicating that it's not a rule.

 

[Undrave]

I mean, it's very clearly a rule. It's in the rules section of the Druid class, in the bullet list under "Proficiencies", next to armor. It's as much a rule as the druid having medium armor proficiency. (shrug) The "taboo vs. rules" angle is new to me, but that's fine. I can create a different category for that.

EDIT: List updated.

We've said it before that it's not a game rule. It has no mechanical framing, so it's clearly an in-universe rule, and if its an in-universe rule, then a character with free will should be able to BREAK that rule. The problem is that the "rule" lists no consequences whatsoever for breaking it.

 

[Undrave]

4e: I don't know, but I highly doubt they were prevented from putting it on or ceased being a druid.

4e had more granular armor proficiencies. The 4e Druid is simply proficient in Cloth, Leather and Hide armor and nothing else. They could seek better armour by spending feats. They could CHOOSE this.

But some of their features stopped working while wearing heavy armor.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Well, what they actually did is just say that no one can cast spells in armor unless they're proficient in that type armor. Which is fine, and ensures that even variant humans or Tasha's races aren't going to be playing armored wizards because there's effectively a feat chain needed to be proficient in armor. It also means druids can't cast spells in wood-and-seashell full plate, unless they spent a feat on it. Which is also fine.

Sigh... if only they had spent half a column of text in the PH on Other Materials. Even if those materials were purely aesthetic and didn't have mechanical uses, it would have prevented this entire thread from happening. They could have cut out like two spells (nobody needs Mordenkainen's sword or true strike) and made room for it.

 

[Maxperson]

4e had more granular armor proficiencies. The 4e Druid is simply proficient in Cloth, Leather and Hide armor and nothing else. They could seek better armour by spending feats. They could CHOOSE this.

Thanks. So 4e follows 1e, 3e, and 5e. 2e is the only edition where it outright prohibited the wearing of metal armor.

 

[Faolyn]

4e had more granular armor proficiencies. The 4e Druid is simply proficient in Cloth, Leather and Hide armor and nothing else. They could seek better armour by spending feats. They could CHOOSE this.

That would be much better. As nice as 5e's simplicity is, I think it could stand to be more granular. I hope that 6e goes back to weapon group proficiencies or even individual weapon proficiencies, and ditto for armor.

 

[mrpopstar]

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

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.

I'm a rule purist who's confused by the people who would have preferred penalties as they appear to be the same people upset about being told how to play their character.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, what they actually did is just say that no one can cast spells in armor unless they're proficient in that type armor. Which is fine, and ensures that even variant humans or Tasha's races aren't going to be playing armored wizards because there's effectively a feat chain needed to be proficient in armor. It also means druids can't cast spells in wood-and-seashell full plate, unless they spent a feat on it. Which is also fine.

Wizards and druids used to be prevented from using their magic in armor(wizards) or metal armor(druids) regardless. I'd actually like to see a return to those rules myself. Still, there was no edition where a druid ceased to be a druid for wearing metal armor.