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

[Maxperson]

But, the rule is character facing. If I misread my dice on purpose that is player cheating and is correctly dealt with by kicking me out the door. This rule is that druids, all and every one, will never wear metal armor. Rather than a Pc, what happens if an NPC is tricked or bespelled into wearing it?

I admit my interest is only due to the silliness of the missing in world consequence. Exploding druids is a fine answer in my book, I just want something to happen in world when it happens.

Maybe the druid gets violently sick?

Just go back to the old rules. The druid can't use any magical abilities. No spellcasting. No shapechanging. And so on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So it's "not allowed" by... who?

The congealed, vienna sausage juice-like desperation to appeal to nostalgia for older editions at the expense of writing good rules.

posted during after-work snack after accidentally refrigerating vienna sausages.

 

[Oofta]

That avoids the issue for your game, sure. The point though remains. There exists circumstances under which druids would don metal armor in 5e. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean that they don't exist as exceptions to that "rule."

Not if I'm the DM.

If another DM says that druids will wear metal armor under certain circumstances then it's not a problem in their campaign.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A lot of classes need to go on quest to get better gear than normal.

"Better gear than normal"? I'm talking normal gear. Breastplate armor isn't better than normal, that is some bog-standard gear.

Like that's basically the idea of magic items and other rare and expensive gear.

Breastplate isn't a magical item, rare or expensive

Wizards need to quest for extra spells.

Beyond their normal spells, sure they can, but it isn't required. Heck, I've seen plenty of DMs who allow the wizard to buy spells or scrolls from other wizards.

Druids also need to go to see differnt animals to gain new wildshape forms.

That is an optional rule, and not one I've seen enforced often. IT was actually added afterwards, because I guess some DMs had issues with the question of "did the druid see a gecko before"

Are druid armour rules more limiting and do they make getting good armour harder for them than the rules of cleric? Yes. But rogue's rules also make getting good armour more difficult to them than for the cleric. Almost like differnt classes were meant to be different!

Rogues can wear the full breadth of their armor proficiency from level 3. Sooner if they get some good money. Yes, if they want optional magical gear that is a bit harder, but studded leather is their peak, and they can buy that in a store.

For a druid to wear breastplate, they need to go on a monster hunting quest, hope the DM doesn't rule the creature too damaged by the combat, gather the materials, then hope they can find someone to craft it. And they are 100% proficient in Breastplate armor. No magic, just bog standard breastplate that any character can buy in the shop for 400 gp

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't it?


Yes - and then what happens? (hint: PHB pg 144)

That's fine. At least you are allowing their choice as the wording in the PHB indicates that they have. It's actually less prohibitive than what I have been saying since a metal armor wearing druid would still be able to shapechange.

I disagree with the assessment that they re non-proficient, but wouldn't argue that in a game. My opinion on that is Occam's Razor applies and the simplest explanation is that the two more completely wordings on pages 65 and 165 are correct, than the one wording on page 45.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is a total dodge. The question pretty clear, and the situation isn't especially fringe: the player has simply decided that their druid puts on ordinary metal armor.
So what does the GM do in that case?
The answer to that must be either (1) say "no," which is completely RAW but also obviously bars player agency on this issue; or (2) say "yes" and then follow up with a non-RAW ruling as a ramification (which might be nothing, or exploding the druid, or ejecting the player, or whatever).

Given the RAW as is, the GM has only those two options.

No. Hear me now and believe me later- this situation is solved in the only proper method for resolving disputes in D&D, the age old legendary game that channels nothing but your sheer will to dominate. File this under - You come at the King, you better not miss.

A player who is asking to don metal armor as a Druid is not just asking about the rules- they are challenging your authority to run the game. Do not given into their so-called "player agency" whines.

Few people understand the psychology of dealing with your garden variety rules-lawyering player. Your normal DM will panic and immediately start throwing chain mail and plate mail and random pieces of metal fo the Druid when the DM hears the rule lawyer clear their throat and say, "AK-SHUALLY there is no penalty for wearing metal armor" ... and then the DM will start apologizing, begging for mercy.

This is wrong. It arouses contempt in the player's heart. The thing to do – when you're running your game and the player suddenly decides that they want their Druid armored up like some sort of Iron Armadillo – what you want to do then is establish your authority through the grand old game of ¿Quién es más macho?

That's right- this is for all of the DMing marbles. Both of you take a d20. And roll.
The lower number drinks that number.
If you tie, you have a roll-off, and the lower number drinks double the number.
Repeat until one person falls beneath the table recanting their heresy, to the extent they can still talk.

The victor ... is the DM. And that will be you. Keep smiling. The idea is to show the rest of the table that you were always in total control of yourself and your game – while the Rules Lawyer lost control of everything.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if I'm the DM.

If another DM says that druids will wear metal armor under certain circumstances then it's not a problem in their campaign.

You're still avoiding the issue. Let's try it this way.

If you were a player in a game where if the 5e druid(not your PC) didn't put on metal armor all of nature would perish, do you think the druid would or should be able to put on the armor?

 

[Oofta]

You're still avoiding the issue. Let's try it this way.

If you were a player in a game where if the 5e druid(not your PC) didn't put on metal armor all of nature would perish, do you think the druid would or should be able to put on the armor?

Has the DM stated, or will they confirm, that they follow the rule that druids will not wear metal armor? Then the druid PC will not wear metal armor. Campaign over.

The only reason this scenario could possibly come up is because it was forced by the DM. I can find a different DM because they're being a dick.

 

[abirdcall]

But, the rule is character facing. If I misread my dice on purpose that is player cheating and is correctly dealt with by kicking me out the door. This rule is that druids, all and every one, will never wear metal armor. Rather than a Pc, what happens if an NPC is tricked or bespelled into wearing it?

I admit my interest is only due to the silliness of the missing in world consequence. Exploding druids is a fine answer in my book, I just want something to happen in world when it happens.

Maybe the druid gets violently sick?

What happens if a vegetarian eats meat?

If they were tricked or coerced into it and they make an attempt to not let it happen again they are still a vegetarian.

But a vegetarian who eats meat on purpose is nonsensical.

That person is not actually a vegetarian.

 

[ECMO3]

Why would you? Did you as player agree to play the game by the rules? Why would you intentionally break a rule?

Maybe, maybe not. No player I have ever played with knew every single rule and feature of the game and normally these come out in play. It is logical to believe that at some point a player playing a Druid is going to want to put on metal armor.