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

[Chaosmancer]

Do you think druids are underpowered like dual wielding?

If you want to make it about mechanical power, let me ask this.

If I have a land druid with Tasha's new rules and a Cleric of Light or Tempest or whichever you want with Tasha's new rules. What makes the druid so much more powerful that their AC must be reigned in? You want to make this about mechanics and powergaming, so what about the Land Druid do you think was so powerful in comparison to the Cleric that the designers are wrong about the fact that this restriction has nothing to do with mechanical power?

Yes, I don't think the limitation is stupid. You bizarre strawmen about druids wielding iron stave and having four metal prosthetic limbs are utterly unconvincing as they simply are not things that would happen in the first place, at least not commonly enough that it would matter.

"I don't think this is common enough" has no bearing on whether or not the rules prevent it from happening. It isn't a bizzare strawman it is the entire point. Druids don't have restrictions on using metal in any way shape or form, except picking up a metal shield (which is mechanically identical to a wooden shield) and wearing metal armor.

If you want this rule to be representing some deeply held religious belief, of themes of the druid who despise metal... then it fails. Utterly and completely. Based on the single fact that they can use metal, just not in two highly specific ways. I don't care that you don't think it will ever come up. The point is that the rule fails its intended purpose if the purpose is to force druidic players to reject metal.

Furthermore, I don't think druids are underpowered, they don't need a AC buff. They're one of the most powerful classes in the game.

I'll reiterate the cleric question. They are also one of the most powerful classes in the game. Very similar to druids. They are allowed to use metal armor. If this was a balance question, if Druids would become too powerful if they were allowed metal armor, then you could point to that, but the designers have specifically stated, there is no mechanical power balance here. None.

But hey, if it is not about powergaming, then certainly you would be fine with you druid getting to wear a metal armour that has rules of hide armour? Good compromise?

You making up an entirely new type of armor just to prove a point? I'd seriously question why you would insist on making sure that if I was wearing metal armor it must only grant an AC of 14 and no higher. It seems like a pointless exercise for something that has no mechanical power balance to it.

Heck, you do realize that Hide armor is just crappy Studded Leather, right? So, I'd thank you for backing off of the stupid metal restriction, then likely move on and find someone who is less dead-set of virtue testing me to make sure I'm not a "bad seed" type of player. I mean, oh no, what if I would want to play a fighter who uses PAM AND Sentinel. The horror. Or I might dare to play a wizard.

 

[Faolyn]

Honestly, I'm less convinced of that and more convinced it's a function of raging about a restriction of druid character behavior in the rules. So I think it's more about contrariness rather than an analysis of whether it is a rule or not.

Er, no. I don't see all that much rage here. Or contrariness. Unless you're saying "they're disagreeing with me and my clearly correct reasoning, therefore they're being contrary."

It's that if it's a rule, it's probably one of the most badly-written and badly-supported rules in the entire edition. Because, as everyone has said, "will not" is not a rule--especially when Crawford referred to it repeatedly as a taboo, and especially when the only times "will not" is used as a rule is in things where it's written as "will not willingly" like not parting with cursed weapons or when under the frightened condition and "will not willingly" approach the creature that frightened them. But there's nothing in the druid description that indicates that druids are magically compelled to not wear armor.

It's as if they had written paladins are proficient in simple and martial weapons (will not use poisoned weapons). Historically, paladins were Lawful Good and therefore wouldn't use poison. But that's not the case in 5e, which allows for any paladin of any alignment (you can have a CE Devotion paladin) and had the Oathbreaker right in the DMG (and the Conquest pally later on). Every paladin has an Oath. That's a rule written right into the class and archetypes. Each archetype actually lists the Oath, albeit in a more prosaic form than what the character actually swears by. If you break that Oath and don't fix it, you stop being a whatever pally and become an Oathbreaker, or possibly a Redemption paladin, depending on what you were originally.

For druids, there's nothing but a parenthetical note that isn't referenced anywhere else in the class, and there's no rules about what happens if you decide to wear metal armor that you're actually proficient in. There's no Circle of Metal (which would be really cool). There's no "anti-druid" archetype. There's not even a note about the cultural ramifications of wearing metal armor.

This isn't rage or contrariness. It's pointing out that the wording makes it so its actual status as a legitimate rule is incredibly unclear.

 

[DnD Warlord]

It is perfectly clear if you dispense with the completely unfounded notion that a piece of text giving explicit instruction in the middle of other rules somehow might not be a rule.

Not true at all… or why else would this thread exists where real people who read and play this game disagree on what it is?

 

[Faolyn]

Since as I recall, the prosthetic limbs are explicitly magical, I don’t think there is any need for them to have metal at all.

Right, but if the only choice was metal (I dunno; the crafter was a dwarf, maybe), then the druid will most likely say "nope, sorry."

 

[Chaosmancer]

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...

Actually, I've offered a few different ways to improve it. Your responses have varied between "You fool, that would let Druids wear metal armor" and "But if I am playing a classical Medieval world that isn't super fantastical, then you can't have that"

It seems much more like you are just dead-set on it being exactly how it is, forever and always, in every world, ect ect.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

What if a player came to you, feeling differently. What if they felt that not only would their druid do exactly that, but that they have a lot of really cool ideas and aesthetics that they would want to implement.

Would you really tell that player "No, your ideas are bad, your druid wouldn't do that. Make a different character."?

 

[Chaosmancer]

For clarity, nowhere does it say (to my knowledge) that druid don’t like metal, or are allergic to it. Only that they will not wear armor (and shields) made of metal.

they are perfectly happy fighting with their steel scimitar, sporting their silver pendant, and use their golden sickle. But some reasons that are stated but not explained, the will not wear armor made of it. They won’t combust if they sit on the iron throne (unless they cast heat metal on it beforehand) and may still enter the gate even if they have to push an forged iron.

i believe the idea is that plate armor is a symbol of «modern» and «technologically advanced» civilisation, and Gygax imagined the druid as a symbol of an ancient, perhaps even antiquated civilisation. Unlike the cleric that was a chassis for priests of different religions, the druid IS a religion with it’s own philosophy and, apparently, taboos.

I think where we diverge slightly here is that the Druids aren't a monolithic religion.

Many, many, many druids hate undead, feel they are unnatural and evil and should be destroyed on sight. Spore Druids always have Animate Dead prepared and can create zombies almost at will (not looking up the restrictions)

I'm sure a Star Druid who focuses on and worships the stars and constellations has a very different religion to the Wildfire druid who embraces the power of flames and has a portion of their soul they can summon as a living flame.


So, even if you say "druidism is a religion" there are already by neccesity multiple sects within that religion with vastly different beliefs. So, how does it make sense that every single one of them has this utterly bizzare idea that metal armor is the sign of modern society... but has no problem with using gold coins to fund a modern banking venture? Do most druids want to do that? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that we should discount the fact that they can, and someone might want to. But at the same time, they are utterly restricted and unable to muster the willpower to pick up and use a metal shield.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where do the rules suggest I should lose my Druid powers?

The rules don't. Various posters have.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you want to make it about mechanical power, let me ask this.

If I have a land druid with Tasha's new rules and a Cleric of Light or Tempest or whichever you want with Tasha's new rules. What makes the druid so much more powerful that their AC must be reigned in? You want to make this about mechanics and powergaming, so what about the Land Druid do you think was so powerful in comparison to the Cleric that the designers are wrong about the fact that this restriction has nothing to do with mechanical power?

Their Ac is not significantly reigned in, they have somewhat harder time attaining great AC. They usually can still eventually get it, and high-tier non-metal magical armours exists in RAW. Also, I'm not starting to directly compare two different classes, there are too many variables. But the fact remains druids are generally considered among the more powerful classes, so balance reasons definitely do not require lifting this minor restriction from them.

"I don't think this is common enough" has no bearing on whether or not the rules prevent it from happening.

Of course it is. Like a lot. It is far more important to have rules that cover situations that come up often than ones that cover rare edge cases. Sure, having rules that cover both, is even better, but priorities are perfectly obvious here.

If you want this rule to be representing some deeply held religious belief, of themes of the druid who despise metal... then it fails. Utterly and completely. Based on the single fact that they can use metal, just not in two highly specific ways. I don't care that you don't think it will ever come up. The point is that the rule fails its intended purpose if the purpose is to force druidic players to reject metal.

It is a rule that covers a common and important area, it is not an extensive treatise on druid beliefs. That is for you as GM to write if you care.

I'll reiterate the cleric question. They are also one of the most powerful classes in the game. Very similar to druids. They are allowed to use metal armor. If this was a balance question, if Druids would become too powerful if they were allowed metal armor, then you could point to that, but the designers have specifically stated, there is no mechanical power balance here. None.

If you envy clerics so much, why not just play a nature cleric then? Or if you're not willing to give up your druid stuff like wildshape to gain metal armour, then that to me sound like successful balancing between the classes! both get something the other one doesn't.

And yeah, this constant comparison to clerics certainly makes sense, because the two classes are very similar. And that's exactly why I don't want them to become even more similar! I want druids to keep their own druid weirdness, such as not wearing metal. It is one of the things that sets these classes apart.

You making up an entirely new type of armor just to prove a point?

I mean you wanted to make a bunch of new armour too.

I'd seriously question why you would insist on making sure that if I was wearing metal armor it must only grant an AC of 14 and no higher. It seems like a pointless exercise for something that has no mechanical power balance to it.

I mean I obviously wouldn't make up such an armour in reality, because I don't want druids to were metal in the first place. But if this was not about powergaming then why wouldn't you be happy with it?

Heck, you do realize that Hide armor is just crappy Studded Leather, right?

Yes. It is pointless and shouldn't exist. But as I said super early in this thread the armour table is full of pointless trap choices. And as this issue seems to cause so much gritting of teeth, it might be easier to just remove both hide armour and druid medium armour proficiency and call it a day.

So, I'd thank you for backing off of the stupid metal restriction, then likely move on and find someone who is less dead-set of virtue testing me to make sure I'm not a "bad seed" type of player. I mean, oh no, what if I would want to play a fighter who uses PAM AND Sentinel. The horror. Or I might dare to play a wizard.

Those classes do not have stupid restrictions you want to get rid of? Like wizards not being able to learn healing spells, what's up with that? Unfair, clerics can and they get armour too!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, I've offered a few different ways to improve it. Your responses have varied between "You fool, that would let Druids wear metal armor" and "But if I am playing a classical Medieval world that isn't super fantastical, then you can't have that"

It seems much more like you are just dead-set on it being exactly how it is, forever and always, in every world, ect ect.

Yeah, I don't like your suggestions, as they either make druids metal armour wearers (if the restriction is removed) or makes everyone non-metal armour wearers (if non-metal equivalents of metal armours are readily and easily available.) Neither preserves the thematic niche of the druids.

I would prefer there to be some sort of metaphysical limitation if they wear metal, such as not being able to wildshape and perhaps even cast spells.