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

[Oofta]

I think what people are saying is that if a vegetarian ate meat by mistake, or had to eat meat for some reason--such as politeness or to avoid starvation--they would still be vegetarians.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that a person who decides that "chicken doesn't count" or eats only vegetables, grains, nuts, and all-beef hot dogs are actually real vegetarians.

In all fairness, no one really knows what goes into hot dogs.

 

[Umbran]

(seriously, what if the DM decided that their campaign revolved around the classical Chinese elements of fire, water, wood, metal, and earth instead of the classical Western elements?).

Then the vaguely European-style Druid is probably already not a great fit. That view of elements wasn't independent - it was tied in with fundamental views of how the natural world worked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fair, I didn’t consider the fact that the spellbook needs to be a physical object so it can hypothetically be lost or destroyed. My point still stands though as long as that information is stored in something physical. Encoded in a crystal or something, doesn’t change the mechanics.

Not convinced. Crystals are significantly different to books. They seem far sturdier than books for example. Definitely not flammable. In any case, this is kind of continuum, as you must notice in this attempt to find the clear cut off point between rules and fluff; it is not clear at all.

I mean it kind of is. Again, a sword is an object that can be separated from you, so that makes it meaningfully different than a fist. But there’s no reason it has to be a sword instead of some other sharp thing you hold in two hands

Considering that there are a big chart of different sharp things that you hold in your hands which have different rules, it is a bit more specific than that.

I think you’ll find this is far from a universally held position. The view that lore and mechanics are categorically different is quite widespread, and not confusing for most people.

In the way you try to use it is very confusing. 'Azoun V is the King of Cormyr' is clearly pure lore. Trying to put things in the rule section of character classes that give explicit instructions and limitations to that same category is not only confusing, it is confused.

It doesn’t refer to game mechanics though. It’s a statement of an action certain characters “won’t” take.

Action declarations are part of game rules as are armours.

 

[Faolyn]

Then the vaguely European-style Druid is probably already not a great fit. That view of elements wasn't independent - it was tied in with fundamental views of how the natural world worked.

Except that I'm pretty darn sure the actual Celtic Druids that the class was modeled after had nothing to do with any sort of element in the classical sense and that Gygax just added that in because he felt like it, because "elements are natural."

"Person who is tied to nature's spirits" works whether you assume four or five classical elements. And if you came up with metal or wood elementals in addition to the air/earth/fire/water elementals, it would work absolutely fine.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Except that I'm pretty darn sure the actual Celtic Druids that the class was modeled after had nothing to do with any sort of element in the classical sense and that Gygax just added that in because he felt like it, because "elements are natural."

At a certain point, we have to give credit (or blame) to Dennis Sustare, don't we?

BUNNIES & BURROWS 4EVA!!!!!!

 

[ad_hoc]

I think what people are saying is that if a vegetarian ate meat by mistake, or had to eat meat for some reason--such as politeness or to avoid starvation--they would still be vegetarians.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that a person who decides that "chicken doesn't count" or eats only vegetables, grains, nuts, and all-beef hot dogs are actually real vegetarians.

I would argue the politeness bit.

There are people who have plant based diets and there are vegetarians which are different.

If a Druid somehow accidentally put on metal armour nothing would happen. People are then going to take that and turn it into some gotcha that lets them wear it. And that isn't playing in good faith.

A lot of the "issues" that get brought up by various rules that I see online I've never seen in play because I've never played with someone who is trying to break the game.

Not everyone in this thread has done that. Some don't like the rule and that's fine.

For the record it is non-negotiable at a table I'm playing at. If that is a red flag so be it. Play a Nature Cleric. I want the classes to mean something.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I won't allow multiclassing to begin with. (It's an optional rule and source of most of the edition's balance issues.) Now I might make an exception if there was a super strong story reason but 'I want better armour' doesn't sound like that.

Okay, then what if they take the heavily armored feat? Or if you really want to be pedantic, they take moderately armored to have full medium armor proficiency and then heavily armored? Then what would you say?

 

[Chaosmancer]

By that token, the existence of a warlock patron also has a mechanical effect, since without a patron, a warlock doesn’t get spells at all.

Which goes back to my point: there isn’t a clear delineation between rules that have mechanical effects and rules that do not.

But, a Patron doesn't have to be a person. Hexblade opened the door to items being patrons. No reason that your patron can't be a fiendish codex, or an orb from the Far Realsm, or a Celestial Rosary.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I agree with your post except for this last part. "Druids don't wear metal" is a very old, well-established rule in D&D that goes back a few decades and several editions of the game. (And so does this debate! ) It makes about as much sense as any other rule does.

Honestly, druids not wearing metal armor bothers me less than all Rogues knowing thieves’ cant, even if you are playing an Outlander Scout Rogue or a Noble Swashbuckler Rogue and have never interacted with the underworld in the least.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, then what if they take the heavily armored feat? Or if you really want to be pedantic, they take moderately armored to have full medium armor proficiency and then heavily armored? Then what would you say?

I answered this earlier.