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

[Undrave]

The text is right there to help you set those expectations correctly. No metal. The same book tells you which armours have metal. This is no different than any other rules a class would have.

Except it clearly is different. There is no other rule that says "your character will (not) do X". It's all "can" and "can't" or "if you do X, then Y happens".

It's way different.

No one who just reads the PHB in good faith would genuinely come to conclusion that druids would wear metal armour. It is plainly said in three differnt places that they don't. The argument only exists thanks to bizarre internet rules lawyering. (And yes, bizarre, this is weirdest rules-lawyering I've ever seen. "It's not a rule because the designer explained the lore and legacy reasons for the rule.")

This seems to presume both a first time player and a player that is well-versed in parsing text like a rules lawyer and up to date with rather abstruse internal RPG arguments.

Even assuming such a player, I can’t imagine such a player not just asking their DM about it “Hmm… it says “will not”, not “can’t”, does this mean that there are certain circumstances in which I “could” wear metal armor?”

If you come from a background of trading card game (like I did) clear precise verbiage can be REALLY REALLY important!

Like, there's a whole thing in Yu-gi-oh! called "missing the timing" where cards that say "when... you can" can default to not triggering if they're not the last thing to revolve. It's mental. You can basically naughty word up an entire card's rulings by using the wrong word that would, in normal parlance, mean the same thing.

So, to me, being hung up on the the difference between "will not" and "cannot" is small beans and they clearly means two entirely different things in regard to ACTUAL game mechanic.

Yep. To make this argument as clear as I can, the rules should never say "won't". They should say "You shouldn't, because you'll suffer penalty X, Y, and Z if you do."

You don't see wizards avoiding greatswords and plate mail because they "won't", they don't wear it because they suffer penalties from trying and they don't really get any good reason to actually try to use it. Same thing with barbarians and heavy armor, or monk with any armor at all.

Exactly!

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

Then, do not give them proficiency in anything but Light Armor and Hide and let the players work it out if they want more AC. They pulled it off with the Barbarian and Monk, why did they go with this stupid rule on the Druid?!

The 5e druid is the old DnD druid filtered through the World of Warcraft/Diablo druid and all the other ones that were "inspired" by the original Druid between now and like, 1980 or whenever, that very few people played compared to the ones it inspired. To get back to anything "real world", i think you have to play 6 degrees of...

So you're saying... Kevin Bacon is a Druid?

 

[Undrave]

there seems to be a clear majority of people who don't want druids in half-plate as the norm.

Yeah I'm perfectly fine with enforcing theme and aesthetic though rules, but they need to be ACTUAL rules like the way the Rogue doesn't get medium armor proficiency, or the way a Monk or Barbarian loses certain features in certain armors. THAT is how you do rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course, one man's mistake is another man's essential element. While the thread may be divided on the interpretation of the rule (or if it really is one) there seems to be a clear majority of people who don't want druids in half-plate as the norm.

Yep. I definitely don't want druids to be default metal armour wearers. I'm less fussed about how exactly that is prevented, as long at it is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is only so much of the ship of Theseus you can replace, after all...

Um... that's not the point of the Ship of Theseus. The ship of Theseus ends up with no original parts.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't necessarily think that being able to circumvent the restriction with a feat or other similar trait is necessarily a huge issue, as it still wouldn't lead metal armours becoming the de facto standard for druids, which is the situation I'd definitely want to avoid. If we take the page 65 literally this still wouldn't work, if we believe page 45 it would. I really don't have strong opinion here, it's starting to get into world building territory.

I don't think anything described in this thread would lead to metal armor being the de facto standard. We've been describing special circumstances and things like a star druid finding star metal and making a specific suit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think anything described in this thread would lead to metal armor being the de facto standard. We've been describing special circumstances and things like a star druid finding star metal and making a specific suit.

There are people who want to get rid of the restriction altogether. So that would.

 

[Maxperson]

As it is, the Sage Advice on this topic is longer than necessary and includes the following sentence:

If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM

and this one:

If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class.

Which implies you need DM permission to forego the "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" rule/guideline/recommendation/fluff/whatchawanttocallit in the class description. And, needing DM permission signals... that it's a rule (EDIT: or at least something that the Player is expected to abide by... what's a good name for that?)

No. What those things imply is that if you want to change the druid story, you need the DM's permission. Putting on metal armor once to save the world in no way changes the druid story. Metal armor is still taboo and you still view it as taboo, so there's no need to get permission for that.

 

[Maxperson]

Good points. But why does Sage Advice implore the player to seek DM permission for their druid to wear metal? If it is just mutable fluff, why bother? (I mean, I know you can't know the mind of JC, but what do you think is behind that "requirement"?)

Because it's important fluff. Much like a Warlock getting his powers from a patron is very important fluff.

If the druid wants to change the druid story to ditch the taboo from the class, he's going to need permission from the DM. If he's simply engaging in an exception, but retraining the taboo story, he can do that without DM permission.

 

[Maxperson]

They're not patrons. A well of magical power without Will that you bind to your Will is not your patron. This is exactly what I'm talking about, why redefine the word patron to include just...literally any source of power regardless of the relationship, when we could instead just recognize that the patron relationship is only what is normal for warlocks, not the entire scope of what is possible?

My first Warlock character was a "magical hacker" who was just as smart as any wizard, but who refused to spend the next decade memorizing the dogma of arcane academia, and instead hacked the underlying code, created a ritual to form a bypass valve in the flow of magic leading into items that he bound to his will with other rituals, and then learnt to do things that mortals can't do via experiment and study of inherently magical creatures.

That's why I say that Warlock patrons and the Druid metal taboo are on par. Both are strongly attached class fluff that you would need DM permission to change. I.e. the Warlock power thief or a druid with no metal armor taboo.

One time exceptions would not rise to that level and would not need permission.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Which is to say, a highly-debatable amount.

Except that it even in 1e druids could put on metal armor. Even then it was a taboo that druids could break if they wanted to. The penalty for doing so was just loss of magic abilities while wearing it.