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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Can we just pause for a second and take note ...

We are well over 1,000 comments in.

And this thread was started on Saturday night. That's right- in less than four days, we've passed 1,000.

How'd we do that? I'm not even mad ... that's amazing!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

True, that is weird. It would make more sense if it was just part of the thief subclass and/or criminal background. But it is such a minor thing and most people just forget that it even exists.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Yeah, that's a silly one all right. (I house-ruled it such that it was tied to the Criminal, Charlatan, and Urchin backgrounds instead of the Rogue class.)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Of course not! But first, you have to convince everyone that it is a mistake not worth repeating, and...well, good luck with that. The past 30-something years of debates and discussions (and the pages and pages of comments in this thread) haven't gained much ground in that direction. Some folks--I'd argue most folks--don't mind the rule, or don't care one way or the other. They won't mind or care tomorrow, either.

I agree. Both having druids that cannot wear metal armor and having druids use part of their class power budget devoted to shapeshifting are elements that remain in D&D for the sake of tradition.

In my opinion, having druids that cannot wildshape (but get a different special ability instead) opens the doors to more stories than saying that all druids can wear metal armor. (There could be a wildshaping druid subclass for those who want it).

 

[J.Quondam]

Can we just pause for a second and take note ...

We are well over 1,000 comments in.

And this thread was started on Saturday night. That's right- in less than four days, we've passed 1,000.

How'd we do that? I'm not even mad ... that's amazing!

Man, I could boil a pot of coffee with just my righteous indignation alone!

 

[J.Quondam]

Yeah, that's a silly one all right. (I house-ruled it such that it was tied to the Criminal, Charlatan, and Urchin backgrounds instead of the Rogue class.)

That... is kinda brilliant, actually. Yoinked!
Thanks!

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Which is part of the problem with making this an universal standard for all "druids" for all time in all realities. I could totally see using the Druid to make a chinese mystic who can transform into animals. Or any of a dozen other flavors of what a "druid" could be.

Having every single one of them follow the same taboo because that's the tradition makes no sense.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Neither is a book made out of iron plates. But they were still considered books.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

I have absolutely no idea why my professional duelist Courtier Swashbuckler knows thieves' cant. Maybe duelists and thieves speak the same language.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which is part of the problem with making this an universal standard for all "druids" for all time in all realities. I could totally see using the Druid to make a chinese mystic who can transform into animals. Or any of a dozen other flavors of what a "druid" could be.

Having every single one of them follow the same taboo because that's the tradition makes no sense.

And having them all wear metal armour doesn't make thematic sense either. Because that's the end result if you lift the limitation.