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

[Faolyn]

PC. Ok, I grab the fighter's greatsword and attack. :: Rolls:: 18 hit?
DM: roll damage.
PC: ok. 2d6 plus strength, and 4d6 sneak attack...
DM: wait! The rules say "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
PC: oh. That's just fluff.

"Must use finesse or ranged weapon" isn't written in a parenthetical aside and described as a cultural taboo.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ahah! Time for Druid Rules-As-Written syllogism #2:

Major Premise: Only druid PCs have the druid PC class features listed in the druid PC class description.
Minor Premise: This PC isn't a druid.
Conclusion: This PC doesn't have the druid PC class features listed in the druid PC class description.

After all, there's no provision in the RAW for "ex-druid" PCs retaining any of the class features of druids, so what else could the RAW answer be for a PC who isn't a druid than they're treated exactly like any other PC who isn't a druid? Characters who aren't druids don't have druid class features.

It is absolutely true that the game doesn't have any rules specifying consequences for druids wearing metal armor. That's rather my point; it means there's nothing offering an alternative to the lose-all-druid-class-features logic. RAW, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". If your PC will, you've demonstrated your PC is not a druid. If a PC isn't a druid, then that PC doesn't get to have any druid class features.

Now we hit a point that is neither defined in the rules nor an obvious logical deduction from them, because you have a PC with an XP total higher than is compatible with their level total. Now you reach a point that can only be resolved by a house rule. One possible conclusion would be that you lose the levels and XP that you applied to druid (and you're at 0 levels and 0 hp if you didn't have levels in any other class). Another would be that you insta-rebuild with another class (or more than one) at your same level total. But, as best I can tell, there's no clear RAW syllogism to be applied at this point.

A syllogism isn’t RAW, especially in an edition wherein the rules are written in plain speech, to be interpreted by a DM as they run the game.

 

[Oofta]

"Must use finesse or ranged weapon" isn't written in a parenthetical aside and described as a cultural taboo.

Ah, so it's the parenthesis that tells us it's not a rule and not just a clarification of the proficiency section?

Umm ... where is that written, or are we just making up stuff?

 

[Bacon Bits]

PC. Ok, I grab the fighter's greatsword and attack. :: Rolls:: 18 hit?
DM: roll damage.
PC: ok. 2d6 plus strength, and 4d6 sneak attack...
DM: wait! The rules say "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
PC: oh. That's just fluff.

I don't see a mechanical problem with it. After all, how many rogues dual wield short swords?

 

[J.Quondam]

PC. Ok, I grab the fighter's greatsword and attack. :: Rolls:: 18 hit?
DM: roll damage.
PC: ok. 2d6 plus strength, and 4d6 sneak attack...
DM: wait! The rules say "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
PC: oh. That's just fluff.

"Great" just means "really really awesome." Therefore, a greatsword is a "really really awesome sword". And it's pretty clear that a really really awesome sword is both finesse and ranged, because, yeah, I saw The Sword and the Sorceror.

Spoiler: really really awesome sword

So that should actually be 8d6 sneak attack, please and thank you very much.

 

[Faolyn]

Ah, so it's the parenthesis that tells us it's not a rule and not just a clarification of the proficiency section?

Umm ... where is that written, or are we just making up stuff?

It's a parenthetical aside that has been repeatedly clarified as a taboo, a choice, and a class flavor. The Sage Advice answer about it even said it's absolutely fine for a druid to wear metal armor if the DM allows it!

Meanwhile, the description for Sneak Attack is actually written in the text. If you don't use a Finesse or Light weapon, you can't get Sneak Attack damage. What are the RAW penalties for a druid who wears metal armor?

 

[Maxperson]

...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:

Yes. I understand that they were for balance reasons. I know why the rule were in place.

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

Okay.

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

Okay.

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.

This is incorrect. While the others only have "Gygaxian language," druids have more. It specifically says, "Metallic armor spoils their magical powers." That's a mechanical penalty for wearing metallic armor.

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.

So I guess druids were just useless in combat. I mean, no shapechanging and no spells = a really crappy 1e druid. Plate armor and a scimitar for the win! They didn't have much in the way of buff spells to cast outside of combat and last enough time to make it to combat. So sure, they could take off their plate and make water or cast pass without trace. Big deal.

 

[DnD Warlord]

What happens if a druid wears metal armor? Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yeah. I wouldn't under most circumstances have a druid willing to have a metal limb. If it were some sort of living metal, though, that might work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

PC. Ok, I grab the fighter's greatsword and attack. :: Rolls:: 18 hit?
DM: roll damage.
PC: ok. 2d6 plus strength, and 4d6 sneak attack...
DM: wait! The rules say "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
PC: oh. That's just fluff.

I mean that rule is also rubbish to force an aesthetic, but at least it's a rule with the mechanical presence of a rule.