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

[Swarmkeeper]

or we can assume that it is intentional, and multiclass druids are intended to gain fewer armor proficiencies than full druids, only gaining proficiency in nonmetal light and medium armor and nonmetal shields.

But pg 45 is not just about multiclass Druids. It is the chart that is the lead-in to the entire PHB Class chapter…

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But pg 45 is not just about multiclass Druids. It is the chart that is the lead-in to the entire PHB Class chapter…

The issue is that pages 45 and 65 say a different things, and if there is a legitimate issue with the rule, it is that. However, without Crawford's 'clarification' of the matter, and just looking at the book it would be somewhat logical to conclude that page 65 is just awkwardly worded and page 45 confirms lack of proficiency.

In any case, neither of the pages in any way imply that druids totally wear metal armour all the time. Both are clear on that they don't, so any reading that arrives to the totally opposite conclusion is obviously ludicrously incorrect.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

If a player wants to play a warlock, but doesn’t want to have a patron, does that violate player agency?

Let’s take a real example. A player wants to play tiefling fiend warlock, but instead of having a devil as a patron, he wants his powers to come from his infernal bloodline (making him similar to a cambion).

Does the rule that warlocks require a patron violate player agency?

 

[TwoSix]

If a player wants to play a warlock, but doesn’t want to have a patron, does that violate player agency?

Let’s take a real example. A player wants to play tiefling fiend warlock, but instead of having a devil as a patron, he wants his powers to come from his infernal bloodline (making him similar to a cambion).

Does the rule that warlocks require a patron violate player agency?

If the DM doesn't allow the concept because they believe a "patron" must be a named NPC who has their own agenda and communicates with the PC, then yes, that would absolutely be violating player agency.

The DM may have what they feel is a good reason for this, like supporting their world-building concepts, but it's still removing agency. It's up to the DM to decide if the gains from denying the agency is worth the cost of hindering the player's idea.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The thing is that in this particular case there are no limitations or consequences indicated. It's fine to impart some, obviously, but that moves it into non-RAW.

Sure, but enshrining RAW in this way is pretty meaningless.

To take @Maxperson ’s example, if a player asks “well, what happens if I violate this rule?”, saying “other druids will shun you and may attempt to kill you”, “natural spirits will refuse to empower your spellcasting” or “nothing, the rule doesn’t specify a consequence” are all equally valid.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So it's "not allowed" by... who? Presumably by some authority, perhaps the Circles or the Nature Goddess or whatever? How exactly are they preventing this thing from happening? Why doesn't the rule explain (or even hint at) this? And why not just have the rule more completely explain what happens in the event a druid does choose to use metal?

My answer to all of that is “whatever makes sense in your world”. Maybe in some worlds, druids are more fey-like and metal burns them (or simply immobilizes them). Maybe in your world druid are more Gaelic and it represents some sort of geas and a player can reject that geas if they replace it with a different one that is equally onerous.

Maybe you trust your players and have it be a religious restriction in-game and have them roleplay it.

This last reason is why I have a hard time seeing as anything other than a rule. I expect my players to roleplay. Even if there is no mechanical consequence to a rule, a player who ignores rules that apply to their character by simply ignoring them is not a good fit for my table and will probably not be invited back.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

This is an easy question. The response is identical to “if there is a ticking time bomb and the only way to defuse it is to torture a terrorist, what would you do?”

 

[FrozenNorth]

And you think that's reasonable? D&D is first and foremost a game of exceptions and rulings. A DM who is a slave to the rules is not a DM I'd ever want to play a game with.

[Edit] - You know what, my response was needlessly dickish. I retract it.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

If the DM doesn't allow the concept because they believe a "patron" must be a named NPC who has their own agenda and communicates with the PC, then yes, that would absolutely be violating player agency.

The DM may have what they feel is a good reason for this, like supporting their world-building concepts, but it's still removing agency. It's up to the DM to decide if the gains from denying the agency is worth the cost of hindering the player's idea.

At which point we reach the realization that "limiting player agency" isn't always a bad thing. Banning PVP is limiting player agency too, technically, but i imagine most groups are OK with that.

 

[carkl3000]

Sage Advice doesn't in any way or form support this interpretation. Crawford merely explains why it is a rule. Having lore reasoning for the rule does not stop the rule being a rule. That should be blindingly obvious, as most rules in the game have some lore reasoning behind them.

Bit I can now certainly see how Sage Advice evolved from actually discussing the reasoning behind the rules to glibly reiterating the RAW back to people. If explaining the lore behind the rule and reminding people that GM can change the rules results people reading it as 'its not really a rule' then why bother?

And yes, I can actually see your agency issue, at least in theory. It would be better if the rule simply was some penalty for wearing the metal. But considering that the issue is unlikely to come up and the player chose this limitation themselves in the first place, I really don't see it as a big deal. And none of this has absolutely anything to do with whether it is a rule. There are a ton of rules in the game that could be formulated better, they're still rules.

Not everyone who is arguing for a looser interpretation of the druid metal armor taboo is saying that you are wrong for wanting to stick to a strict prohibition on using or gaining benefit without consequences, I think that's absolutely reasonable and supported if that's how you read the rules. (I do realize that some absolutely are arguing that. I don't really agree with the interpretation that there is no support in the rules for any prohibition on druids wearing metal armor.)

I do think that some who are arguing for a more moderate interpretation, are just trying to point out that if a player says their druid character picks up a shield or dons an item of metal armor, and the response is to stop the game and just say flat out that "No. They don't. Pick something else to do," that that's kind of an inelegant way to go about it and it really is interfering with player agency. It seems like for most situations that might come up it should be possible to work with it instead of just shutting it down. I know that it must happen that a GM has to deal with an abusive or unruly player, but I think it seems odd to a lot of us that this one, mostly inconsequential, thing would trigger such a "my way or the highway" response.

Given that there's that table in the PHB that says druids are proficient with medium armor (non-metal) I think it's very reasonable to use a game mechanics approach to disincentivize the choice. If not that, I think it's fine to invent some kind of physical revulsion, or divine intervention, or social consequence, or whatever to make it clear to the player that this is not a choice that comes lightly to the character. Then continue on with the game and try to get the player something equivalent to the prohibited metal item when the opportunity arises.

...or of course, you are fully within your rights to stop the game and say, "No. You don't do that. Try again." I just think that doing that seems more wrong to some of us than choosing to be a little looser with the metal armor thing.