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

[CleverNickName]

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.

I don't disagree. I think it would be cool if there were actual penalties listed for druids who wear metal armor. But I don't think that is a disqualifier for "rule" status.

Anyway, I was really just trying to summarize all of the different arguments into a quick list, for folks who will not read the whole thread. I think I've captured everything, but let me know if I missed an angle.

 

[Undrave]

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

and in case you missed my edit, the Primal Aspect class feature has features that stop working in heavy armor. Like, they can use their CON instead of DEX/INT to calculate AC while in non-Heavy armor.

 

[Maxperson]

and in case you missed my edit, the Primal Aspect class feature has features that stop working in heavy armor. Like, they can use their CON instead of DEX/INT to calculate AC while in non-Heavy armor.

I did miss that. Thanks.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Because a penalty still present you with a choice. You can decide that that, in certain circumstances, the penalties are worth it and nobody can stop you.

"will not" rules just take that choice away from you.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

Should have expected the 'rule deniers' would also deny being a rules denier.

That one's on you

 

[mrpopstar]

Because a penalty still present you with a choice. You can decide that that, in certain circumstances, the penalties are worth it and nobody can stop you.

"will not" rules just take that choice away from you.

Ah, okay. Thank you.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Suffering consequences for a choice is different than not being given the choice.

Edit: Just saw Undrave answered.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

The only "problem" with this is that eldritch knights and arcane tricksters are specifically said to study wizard magic, but they can wear armor while casting spells just fine. Plus, multiclass characters.

In a future edition, of course, they might not have any armored classes that can cast wizard spells, and they might even do away with multiclassing in favor of flavored feats, which would solve easily solve that problem. And would probably mean that few people take a wizard-flavored feat unless they were already planning on going around without armor, which is fine.

 

[Maxperson]

The only "problem" with this is that eldritch knights and arcane tricksters are specifically said to study wizard magic, but they can wear armor while casting spells just fine. Plus, multiclass characters.

And I think some other prestige classes in 3e could do it as well. Also, looking at 1e bards who were in fact druids as well as thieves and fighters, I see that they were allowed to wear magical chainmail which was metal, so at least one druid in 1e could wear a metal armor without penalty.

2e turned bards arcane, rather than druidic, but were still able to wear chain mail.

It was explicitly wizards in 1e and 2e that could not wear any armor at all. In 3e they added in arcane failure, moving towards wizards being able to cast in armor, but still retaining a penalty and reason not to

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is that a threat, or an offer of a good bottle of scotch?

Scotchy scotch scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly.

You absolutely believe it is scotch.