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

[TwoSix]

There's a big difference between "choose between a devil and a demon" and "a devil offers you aid which would benefit you greatly, you just have to do this one little thing for him".

The former, to me, tells me that the DM/mod author thinks religious convictions are stupid, the latter is a legitimate temptation.

Yes, I agree that a storyline that presents a binary pair of options, both of which are equally bad for the PC, is hardly doing anything worth calling "challenging the PC's convictions." That's just lame.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It reads like a rule and is referenced in the class rules summary chart. It is a rule. The designer explaining why it is a rule doesn't make it a not rule. It is completely mind-boggling the this is even a discussion.

The class summary chart says they aren't proficient in metal armors, which is quite different than the one single example of telling a player what their character will not do. Not even alignment or paladin codes do that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be clear, I'm saying NOT challenging convictions is bad DM practice. The best games are generally the ones where you put the PCs through the wringer.

I stand corrected. Sorry, Oofta.

 

[Undrave]

Yes, it is. What a strange claim.

If a conviction can never be challenged then it's not a conviction, it's a law of the universe. Not saying that you should always challenge the convictions of your PC, only that that specific story is available to those who want to play with it. As it stands, that story in regard to metal armor and shield with a Druid is basically forbidden by the "rule" that is the only one of its type in the entire book...

I'd probably describe the discarded shield as being made of wood, especially if I had placed it there specifically for the druid to use as an item of last resort. The player wouldn't bat an eye.

If that wasn't possible for some really weird hypothetical reason, I would go the Thorin Oakenshield route: I'd let the druid pick up a nearby chunk of wood or whatever, to use as a rudimentary shield.

And if that wasn't possible for an even weirder, more hypothetical (or contrived) reason: I would call a break, discuss this with the player, and devise an after-the-fact ramification that both of us can live with, then return to the game. It would probably involve loss of powers and atonement, and would become the premise for another adventure.

And if even that wasn't possible, somehow, for no reason I can even imagine: I would conclude the player is being stubborn and actively trying to break the rule for no other reason than to see it broken, and is unwilling to compromise. So I would call a break to discuss that issue privately with the player, and the player would likely be removed from the group.

Wow you're really going out of to uphold this one stupid rule... You could just say "Sure, you pick up the shield." then deal with the moral impact on the character later. Sheesh. No need to grind a tense fight to a halt just for that one badly written rule.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What you refuse to understand that without the restriction it is not just a neutral choice, either wear metal armour or don't. Wearing metal armour is simply better, so either do that, or take a significant mechanical hit for maintaining the concept.

It's like if monk class was constructed so that they could use great axes and two handed swords which were just simply better than their unarmed attacks and traditional monk weapons. Yes, in theory you could still choose to use flat out inferior options if you wanted the flavour, but would be strongly mechanically incentivised to not do so.

Then provide easily accessible, non-metal armors that are just as good mechanically. Poof. Problem gone.

Well, new problem because those armors are mechanically superior to their metal counterparts, but I'm sure you don't have an issue with the fighter and the paladin wearing non-metal armor, right?

 

[Chaosmancer]

No one is denied their proficiencies. They simply may not be able to utilise them fully.

Proficiencies are fairly binary. IF you have it, but aren't allowed to use it... that is identical to them being removed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you think it' would be okay in the real world to set up a scenario that forced someone to violate their most deeply held beliefs?

Is the real world a storytelling game about creating drama for people's entertainment? No. Why then are we even asking this?

I don't take people's convictions or beliefs lightly. Even pretend ones. I don't tell people that what their PC's firmly believe is something that can just be tossed aside because I, as the DM and the one who runs the universe and could have easily come up with some other alternative, decided to set up a Sophie's Choice scenario. I don't tell people that I think convictions and beliefs are just personal choice that they can tossed aside.

But, this is basically what you are doing.

If I play a dwarven druid who comes from a long line of armor-smiths, then even if you never put me in a scenario where I have to choose between wearing armor or not, you have already told me that my character believes in the taboo of not wearing armor more than he believes in his family's traditions. Or you are telling me I can't make that character.

No matter how you slice it, even without a Sophie's Choice you have stepped in and said "this is what your character believes, and this is a belief that they will hold onto with no compromise and no question."

So because you don't think a taboo is important, nobody can believe it's important? Gotcha.

Do you just not read more than three words of anything I post?

My point wasn't that "no one can believe it is important" my point was:

WHY CAN'T MAKING IT IMPORTANT BE MY CHOICE

What? Becuase you think it is important no one can ever decide it isn't? All people must obey your beliefs? Obviously not, that's ridiculous, and yet that is what you are saying. That I can never decide what my character values more. I must always decide that this taboo is the most important belief they have. And that is BS



Edit: Just to take a moment to highlight something. Which is the more engaged player?

Why doesn't your druid wear metal armor?

Player A: "I don't know, the rules said they don't. I'm just doing what the book tells me."

Player B: "Well, the rules don't require it, but it is a tradition for druids. So, I started thinking about how I could make it make sense for them to swear off armor. I decided that there was a mining town near where he was trained, and they stripped the forest to mine and make charcoal to armor some lord's army. So, the association with the people who destroyed his homeland pushes him to avoid using any metal, even coins, as much as possible."


If people want the tradition and taboo to matter. That's great. More power to them. But forcing all of us to follow beliefs we don't agree with? Pointless.

 

[CleverNickName]

Wow you're really going out of to uphold this one stupid rule...

Well, yes. It's kind of the DM's job to uphold the rules. Even the stupid ones.

If a rule needs changing (which this one does IMO), we call a break and discuss it (which we did). It might not have been the best way to handle it, but nobody complained and my game didn't explode so I guess it worked out fine.

Personally, I don't think it's kosher for the DM to just change/ignore rules on the fly as they see fit. Some people are okay with that, but I think it's better to talk about them on a break first. Especially if the survival of a character (or the world) is on the line. Somehow.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh! And back ON-TOPIC....

First, re-posting the situation from just upthread:



Even assuming the GM has chatted with the player about the druidic vow in session zero, the player is nonetheless in this situation and has voiced the PC's thoughts.

• How do you handle this ghoul situation as a GM, in light of the RAW no-metal rule?
• Do you retcon when the rule issue becomes evident, or try otherwise preempt it from happening? If so, how?
• Do you allow that character the free will to go through with it, or forbid the attempt?
• Do you devise an in-fiction way to prevent it (paralysis? the shield disappears/corrodes/etc? an electrified forcefield surrounds it?)?
• Do you devise an after-the-fact ramification, RP and/or mechanical? (lost powers? proficiency? ostracized from their Circle? atonement?)

Serious questions, especially for the "hard" RAW folks on this issue.

Jumping off this for a second.

A player who actually cares about the Taboo? Even if they decide to break it to pick up the shield, they are going to also be the first person to turn around and ask the DM how they should atone. A player who cares about this taboo will make it matter, even if the rules don't force the issue, because they care.

But you can't go forcing everyone to care about a certain set of beliefs just because you think they should.

 

[Oofta]

Is the real world a storytelling game about creating drama for people's entertainment? No. Why then are we even asking this?




But, this is basically what you are doing.

If I play a dwarven druid who comes from a long line of armor-smiths, then even if you never put me in a scenario where I have to choose between wearing armor or not, you have already told me that my character believes in the taboo of not wearing armor more than he believes in his family's traditions. Or you are telling me I can't make that character.

No matter how you slice it, even without a Sophie's Choice you have stepped in and said "this is what your character believes, and this is a belief that they will hold onto with no compromise and no question."



Do you just not read more than three words of anything I post?

My point wasn't that "no one can believe it is important" my point was:

WHY CAN'T MAKING IT IMPORTANT BE MY CHOICE

What? Becuase you think it is important no one can ever decide it isn't? All people must obey your beliefs? Obviously not, that's ridiculous, and yet that is what you are saying. That I can never decide what my character values more. I must always decide that this taboo is the most important belief they have. And that is BS



Edit: Just to take a moment to highlight something. Which is the more engaged player?

Why doesn't your druid wear metal armor?

Player A: "I don't know, the rules said they don't. I'm just doing what the book tells me."

Player B: "Well, the rules don't require it, but it is a tradition for druids. So, I started thinking about how I could make it make sense for them to swear off armor. I decided that there was a mining town near where he was trained, and they stripped the forest to mine and make charcoal to armor some lord's army. So, the association with the people who destroyed his homeland pushes him to avoid using any metal, even coins, as much as possible."


If people want the tradition and taboo to matter. That's great. More power to them. But forcing all of us to follow beliefs we don't agree with? Pointless.

The DM decides when to ignore rules including the restriction on metal armor. If the DM decides it's optional then it's up to the player. If he player decides it's an important aspect of their character, I'm not going to force them into a "break your taboo or the world ends".