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

[Maxperson]

It’s not on the list. It’s mentioned as a language you can possibly learn at character creation with the DM’s permission. I just don’t grant that permission, except in very exceptional cases.

I generally wouldn't, either. However, if a non-druid character had been raised by a druid(or some other good reason), I'd allow it.

 

[mrpopstar]

Sources of light in a dark environment (nighttime, inside a cave, etc.) have specific ranges they illuminate. A torch, for example, provides Bright Light in a 20 foot radius and Dim Light for 20 feet beyond that. Past that range is Darkness, which counts as a Heavily Obscured area, equivalent to dense fog or opaque foliage, and which blocks vision entirely.

So if you have two people standing 100 feet away from each other, both with torches, each of them can see up to 40 feet away from their torch. The areas of lighting created by each of their torches do not overlap, so there is at minimum 20 feet of Darkness between them. Darkness creates a Heavily Obscured area, in which vision is completely blocked, again equivalent to dense fog or opaque foliage. With all that information, would you say that the two people can see each other's torches through the darkness?

I would, but I understand the logic being used and see the point you're trying to make.

 

[cbwjm]

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

Yay. Same goes for thieves cant.

 

[Charlaquin]

I generally wouldn't, either. However, if a non-druid character had been raised by a druid(or some other good reason), I'd allow it.

Fair enough

 

[FrozenNorth]

Again, if you interpret it to be a rule, you must accept that at least one rule in the game violates player agency. If you accept that, fine, but I wouldn’t.

To be pedantic, rules don’t violate player agency, DMs do.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be pedantic, rules don’t violate player agency, DMs do.

If you accept “druids will not wear metal armor” as a rule, that rule does.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've tried to use it, but it is incredibly difficult to use. The best case scenario is talking to the druid player and no one else can understand you. That or carved messages or trail signs.

It is very very difficult to get druidic to come up outside of those scenarios.

I steal a page from warlock in a magus world & make druidic work like a language taught to casters in the webnovel that any living creature can understand. It doesn't help the speaker understand any replies, but they could play a bit of charades or something if need be. Despite that bump I've never actually heard a player ask if they could learn it or express a desire for it because it's still pretty pointless.

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.

That would actually be a huge improvement because it would allow discussion on topics like if the thing linked to (not)wearing metal armor has a reasonable cost:benefit ratio, where the ratio falls down, & how it can/should best be fixed if that ratio is screwed. Instead we have the current situation where we can't do any of that because wotc wants to have it both ways while ignoring the results of both. For example. Lets say my improved druidic language only worked if a druid were wearing nonmetal armor... cool whatever reasonable tradeoff & choice... If instead wildshape spellcasting natural recovery & so on were all disabled for 24 hours after wearing metal armor now there is a problem because some selection of those things need to be dialed up somewhat to justify the tradeoff like they did with ranger.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, if you interpret it to be a rule, you must accept that at least one rule in the game violates player agency. If you accept that, fine, but I wouldn’t.

Whether a rule violates player agency has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a rule. It may have something to do with whether it is a good rule.

Then again, even the claim that it violates agency is rather questionable, at least that it uniquely does so. The game is literally built on limits on possible actions. Furthermore, the player chose this. They willingly chose to play a druid, so doing so they willingly chose to not wear metal armour, just like when player chooses to play a wizard, they willingly to choose to play a person who studies books.

 

[billd91]

If you accept “druids will not wear metal armor” as a rule, that rule does.

The player has the option to not play a druid. Since that's out there in the open, that rule is no more a violation of agency than anything else.

 

[jgsugden]

Druids - eschewing materials found in nature in favor of slaughtering nature and wearing the corpse since 1973.