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

[J.Quondam]

Your bizarre strawmen

You've used this specific phrase quite a lot, and it's arguably appropriate for some of the weird proposals being tossed around in this thread.

But not every conceivable instance that a druid might choose to wear metal armor is a "bizarre" strawman. Not every druid wants metal prosthetics, or iron skin, or is trying to subvert the Circle, or something else. Sometimes they just want to survive, or doubt, or end up deceived. Ordinary, non-metagamey, non-nefarious stuff.

For example (yet again) a druid looking for a way to quickly boost his defense against this bad guy right here right now so he doesn't die is not bizarre. There is simply no good reason* for the GM to deny the player their right to have their own character choose to use or not use a shield in such a basic, very relatable, and more definitely NOT A STRAWMAN case.

Forget the lore for a moment; this RAW can completely contradict the basic human instinct of survival, which is one of those unwritten underlying "rules" like gravity or greed that player's assume in order to operate in the game world.

One of the GM's responsibilities is to correct obviously bad rules.
And this is one of those horrible rules.

Anyway, I get you like the rule. Cool. But please, please, please stop insinuating that those who don't like it are basing that dislike on "bizarre strawmen". Because we're not. We have very good, very legitimate reasons for disagreeing.

* That is correct: Nonsensically hewing religiously to RAW makes no more sense than a druid nonsensically hewing religiously to the no-metal vow.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You've used this specific phrase quite a lot, and it's arguably appropriate for some of the weird proposals being tossed around in this thread.

But not every conceivable instance that a druid might choose to wear metal armor is a "bizarre" strawman. Not every druid wants metal prosthetics, or iron skin, or is trying to subvert the Circle, or something else. Sometimes they just want to survive, or doubt, or end up deceived. Ordinary, non-metagamey, non-nefarious stuff.

For example (yet again) a druid looking for a way to quickly boost his defense against this bad guy right here right now so he doesn't die is not bizarre. There is simply no good reason* for the GM to deny the player their right to have their own character choose to use or not use a shield in such a basic, very relatable, and more definitely NOT A STRAWMAN case.

Forget the lore for a moment; this RAW can completely contradict the basic human instinct of survival, which is one of those unwritten underlying "rules" like gravity or greed that player's assume in order to operate in the game world.

One of the GM's responsibilities is to correct obviously bad rules.
And this is one of those horrible rules.

* That is correct: Nonsensically hewing religiously to RAW makes no more sense than a druid nonsensically hewing religiously to the no-metal vow.

I am not disagreeing with it being a bad rule in a sense that is poorly implemented. It would be better if it was consequence based.

The positions I'm arguing against are 1) it is not a rule 2) the limitation shouldn't exist. I disagree with both of those stances. It obviously is a rule, which prohibits druids from wearing metal armour.

And whilst I think the implementation of the rule is clumsy, I don't think the practical impact is terribly big. In 99.9% of time, the player just thinks 'ok, no metal armour' don't try to equip such and that's it. And instances of druids covering themselves in metal in other ways are sufficiently rare that they're not terribly likely to come up and thus cause thematic dissonance, thus comparing them to armour is a strawman. Which is not to say that more holistic rule that covered such situations too wouldn't be better.

 

[Faolyn]

What happens if my fighter in plate decides to multiclass to druid? Does he need to remove the Plate before he multiclasses? Better yet, what if he is a warforged and is literally made of metal? Are Warforged even allowed to play Druids? are warforged who have a metal body allowed to add other metal to it? What about Artificers with the armorer subclass, can they multiclass to Druids? The armor is part of their body, what happens when the character tells the DM he is multiclassing to Druid?

Ackshually, warforged are made of metal and wood.

 

[TwoSix]

Is anyone actually arguing that gamist, Gygaxian restrictions on armor are actually a good idea?

Does anyone not actually agree that non-proficiency plus consequences for violating restrictions is the superior approach to a video game style restriction on what armor can be worn?

 

[Maxperson]

Max, seriously- I have no idea what you are smoking or how much tequila you might have drank. I have come across almost ... every ... single ... variant .... and bizarre misunderstood rule for OD&D and 1e. And yet, I have never in the history of ever come across someone who said, "Yeah, we used to play druids in plate. By the RAW. No big deal. Guys in my school did it all the time."

What are you talking about? Of course they didn't play that way. Who would play with a druid in plate when plate removed the ability to shape change and cast spells?

Don't misstate my argument. My argument isn't that people played that with druids running around in metal armor. My argument is that a druid had the option in 1e to put on plate and suffer the mechanical consequences. That's a fact born out by the rules. You don't list a penalty for something that cannot be done.

 

[Maxperson]

Is anyone actually arguing that gamist, Gygaxian restrictions on armor are actually a good idea?

Does anyone not actually agree that non-proficiency plus consequences for violating restrictions is the superior approach to a video game style restriction on what armor can be worn?

It's almost the same difference. In 1e if a druid put on metal armor he couldn't cast spells or shapechange. In 5e they don't have proficiency and just can't cast spells. They can still shapechange, though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We have arrived at the place where 'strawman' and 'like a videogame' have been engaged. We have entered the discussion death spiral.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is anyone actually arguing that gamist, Gygaxian restrictions on armor are actually a good idea?

Does anyone not actually agree that non-proficiency plus consequences for violating restrictions is the superior approach to a video game style restriction on what armor can be worn?

I don't think so. I think pretty much everyone agrees that the limitation could be handled better. It's just that because some people bizarrely insists that it is not a rule at all we end up arguing about that instead of discussing how the rule could be improved. Also people assign varying levels of importance the the rule's awkward implementation. Like I definitely think it could be better, but I also think in practice it doesn't matter terribly much. It most likely simply won't come up. Though I would houserule it some way if it was relevant for my campaign (i.e. if someone was playing a druid) but then again I constantly waste my time making houserules to deal with hypothetical situations that will never happen in the game anyway...

 

[Faolyn]

Rising from the Last war introduce prosthetic limbs, Keith Baker's Dread Metrol takes the concept & builds on it in a few horrific ways fitting ravenloft. It absolutely can happen. Nothing in Eberron or Ravenloft bars druid PCs & they actually have a more significant role in eberron than FR

Honestly, I really feel that a druid would rather rip their own arms off than wear something unnatural like metal limbs. Now, if those prosthetic limbs were made of wood, or even bone or horn, yeah, sure they wear them.

And yes, a druid could be borged or something thanks to Ravenloftian horrors (see: Ahmi Vanjuko from the second Ravenloft MC appendix), but that's something done to the druid, not the druid's choice. And no DM who is also a decent person worth playing with is going to force something like that on a PC in order to make them lose abilities.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What are you talking about? Of course they didn't play that way. Who would play with a druid in plate when plate removed the ability to shape change and cast spells?

Don't misstate my argument. My argument isn't that people played that with druids running around in metal armor. My argument is that a druid had the option in 1e to put on plate and suffer the mechanical consequences. That's a fact born out by the rules. You don't list a penalty for something that cannot be done.

...there is a simple reason for that. Because ... that's not how OD&D and 1e worked.

Unlike, say, later 2e and 3e, OD&D and 1e were very much "gamist." Rules like these were for balancing, not realism.

Here, let's try some simple examples:

1. Why can't a MU wear armor? Well, because they can't. That's why.
What if they do? Well, they can't.

2. Why can't a Monk use oil? Because they can't.
What if they do? Well they can't.

There is no "mechanical penalty" because you are taking some spare Gygaxian language and fashioning a rule out of it. Because you want things to make sense. But that's not a rule. The RULE is that Druids are restricted to leather and to a wooden shield.


EDIT- look, let's simplify. People loved to find exploits in the rules, even back then. If you were right- that wasn't much of a penalty, since most druid spells (at least until 3rd level spells) were cast out-of-combat, and they couldn't shapechange until 7th level. So it would be a massive advantage to wear metal armor most of the time. Just find one reference- a single reference- to any contemporaneous source from 1976 - 1986 (10 years) showing a Druid wearing metal armor. I'll take any rulebook, any module, any official TSR publication, and even Dragon magazine. Good? Good. Done and done.