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

[Laurefindel]

This is something I can't wrap my head around.

"If you don't want to conform to an antiquated idea that prevents you from playing the druid you want to play, just don't play a druid at all and play something else" How is this supposed to be a solution?

I prefer « archetypical », but your point still stand. Many classes impose rules to enforce an archetype, even if they are antiquated, but they at least have clear consequences or a clear indication that only this class can do X.

i like the « no metal » rule/taboo, but I do wish there were better hard leather armors. A classical cuirass like those worn by Greek soldiers could use the breastplate entry IMO. And while we’re at it, boost the poor hide armor to 13+Dex (max +2)…

 

[Vaalingrade]

How can you not get it? It is terrible game design to make players choose between archetypal theme and a mechanical benefit. The rules should do the exact opposite!

It is also bad game design to stick a piece of flavor text in a stat block that removes player agency without explanation or recourse. Especially in such a way as to convince people that it is a mechanical rule.

Even if you like shackling druids to hide armor, this 'druids will not wear' crap is bad game design.

Either the design should give a penalty to discourage the archetype, a benefit to encourage it, or just give up on forcing it. Don't try to be the players' daddy and say 'because I say so'.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This also bring up the example - what if you multiclass and you left your Druid "beliefs" behind. You still have your Druid levels, but your "beliefs" are completely different now than they were when you started. You are a necromancer now and your goals are to turn every wild animal out there into an improved undead version. You still have your Druid powers of course, and since you have training in medium armor you know how to use half plate. But your general attitude is "Puck Nature"!

Can the DM let me where it now?

They'd likely say that you lose all of your druidic powers.

Even though the spore druid is already at the point of making undead so it is a very small step to cross that line

 

[Vaalingrade]

None of this is helped by the people who rightly compromise by saying they'd offer alternate materials, but then turn around and decide the druid should jump through hoops no one else does for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No one forcing anything here.

None of us know where any of us live. None of us can force any of us to do anything.

I suppose if we could, then it would get really ugly. Or maybe we would all realize how silly and inane this argument is.

I do suppose if all my players wanted metal armor druids and had even a fraction of the passion about it that you and some others do, then sure why not. It's a game. I'm sure everyone in real life would bend either way rather than disband a campaign (ostensibly forever because they act and behave as stubbornly as we do in this thread with accusations of tyranny and inability to read and probably a bunch other stuff that's been said here).

I'd like to believe that, but we've had multiple people on this thread react exactly with "I will kick players from my tables who do not follow the rules" so clearly there is a lot of passion for forcing this issue.

 

[Undrave]

Because it's a rule?

It doesn't follow the same syntax or vocabulary as ANY other rule. It's a rule that breaks the rules on rule writing. It doesn't sound or look like a rule at all. Any game designer worth his salt wouldn't have added a rule that is so... alien to the rest of the ruleset.

How can you not get it? It is terrible game design to make players choose between archetypal theme and a mechanical benefit. The rules should do the exact opposite!

True! Just like the Barbarian, the Monk, the Rogue, or even the 4e Druid itself, there should be mechanical penalties for going against theme.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it's a rule?

¯\(ツ)/¯

I understand that this is a deeply unsatisfying answer to you (I think the length of this thread, and your participation in it, have made that clear), but it's really that simple.

People can feel very passionate about different rules in D&D- I mean, I assume they do? I lack passion for most things, except topiaries and tequila. At the end of the day, though, it's like anything else; the rules are whatever you decide at your table. They are guidelines, not edicts.

I mean, you can lobby WoTC to change it in future printings of the PHB, or change it in the errata. Of maybe have it changed in 6e.

Until then, talk to your DM (if you are a player) or discard the rule (if you are the DM) given your very strong opinions! I hope you find nothing but success, well-manicured landscapes, a bottle of Casa Dragones Joven, and metal-encased druids in your future.

That is unsatisfying, mostly because I can't imagine a rule like that getting printed in any future book. It is a rule unlike anything else in the book, whose entire purpose is to force a player to conform to an ideal. And I don't understand how that could be okay.

 

[Undrave]

That is unsatisfying, mostly because I can't imagine a rule like that getting printed in any future book. It is a rule unlike anything else in the book, whose entire purpose is to force a player to conform to an ideal. And I don't understand how that could be okay.

I dunno about you, but I can't think of ANY other (modern) game rule, in another (modern) game, that used the formulation "X will not do Y". The only time Icould see it is when talking about automated game pieces, like an automata for solo gameplay or something.

It's like trying to explain how chess pieces move and saying "The Rook will not move diagonally" instead of saying "the Rook moves orthogonally". It's bass awkward is what it is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It doesn't follow the same syntax or vocabulary as ANY other rule. It's a rule that breaks the rules on rule writing. It doesn't sound or look like a rule at all. Any game designer worth his salt wouldn't have added a rule that is so... alien to the rest of the ruleset.

And yet, it is there. You do not like the implementation of the rule, which is ... totally cool! I get it. I'm not arguing with you that you do not like the way the rule is written.* But just because you don't like a rule, doesn't make it ... not a rule.

And when asked, the method to not have the rule is the same as it is for anything else, talk to your DM-
"If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM."


*As an exercise-

Would it be better if the rule said, "Can not"? "Shall not"? No?

Okay, what if the rule was written with consequences? If it had the worst consequences ever, would that make a difference to you? If the effect of wearing metal armor was the same as getting hit with a (no save) disintegrate spell for 500 hit points, is that better? Or do people want manageable consequences?

Or, would you prefer detailed rules about a "taboo breaker" Druid? Like the oath breaker paladin? Or just rules for losing all your powers?

I'm saying this to point out that there are two basic issues:
A. I don't like the rule qua rule (I think that Druids should be able to wear metal armor).
B. I don't like the rule's implementation (I don't like the way the rule is worded).

A & B are different. I think that there are people who see the restriction on druids, which carries through- it includes multiclass, feats, whatever. They don't like A. They want the ability to wear metal armor. And they conflate that with B (they don't like the implementation).

Now, there are other people that are just saying "I don't think it's a rule," but ... you know, I can't help them. At a minimum, even if you truly believe it's not a rule for ... reasons, I'm not sure how you can not understand why other people view it as a rule. shrug

 

[Crimson Longinus]

True! Just like the Barbarian, the Monk, the Rogue, or even the 4e Druid itself, there should be mechanical penalties for going against theme.

Yes, that would definitely be a better way to do it. I am not disagreeing with that.