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

[Oofta]

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?

It's not a parenthetical aside and in the PHB it's not clarified at all [edit: as a taboo]. It's right there in the proficiency line. It makes sense that it's in parenthesis because it's an exception to the proficiency rule and it breaks the normal structure of the proficiency line.

Sage advice does call it a taboo but says nothing about it being optional. All rules can be modified if the DM allows it, it's called house rules. House rules are perfectly fine. For example, I would let a rogue sneak attack with a greatsword. However, I don't claim that sneak attacking with any weapon you are proficient with is a rule, it's a house rule.

I don't care how you run your game. Pretending it's not "really" a rule because you don't like it is what I don't get.

 

[Oofta]

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.

And if they eat meat they are no longer a vegetarian.

As it says in sage advice: "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class." If you wear metal armor and the DM decides it's not okay in their campaign the PC is no longer a druid.

 

[Maxperson]

Slightly outside your time frame but still clearly for 1e: "The New, Improved Druid" by Richard Hernandez from Dragon #139, published in '88.

View attachment 141788
Sure, this is specifically one type of metal armor, made by elves--but it strongly suggests that it's not metal armor that's bad, it's that metal armor is not usually made in a way that doesn't mess with druids.

And, in 5e, that could be extrapolated to indicate that certain other armors could also count in that manner. The DMG has the "Who Created It or Was Intended to Use It?" table for magic items, with Fey as one of the options. I could definitely see fey armor as being acceptable here.

Of course, the real issue is that 5e could have fixed this whole problem by simply including a sidebar called "weapons and armor made out of unusual materials" and included a few rules for stone, bone, wood, shallacked paper, or fantasy materials, instead of just limiting themselves to mithral and adamantine.

And it shows(again) that the druid could put metal armor anyway, with the mechanical penalty of losing spellcasting and innate abilities while wearing it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's a parenthetical aside that has been repeatedly clarified as a taboo, a choice, and a class flavor.

Yes, that is fluff basis for the rule. If rules that are based on fluff are not rules, that's like 95% of the rules gone.

The Sage Advice answer about it even said it's absolutely fine for a druid to wear metal armor if the DM allows it!

Yes. That's called the GM altering the rules. Same as with any other rule. That you cannot ignore this prohibition otherwise should make it crystal clear that it is a binding rule for the players.

Meanwhile, the description for Sneak Attack is actually written in the text.

Druid armour restriction is 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?

Druids don't wear metal armour just like non-finesse weapons don't add sneak attack damage. The RAW penalty for a druid wearing metal armour is the same than the RAW penalty for adding the sneak attack dice to your great sword's damage.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Nobody is telling you that you can't play your druid like that. What people are saying is that you cant demand someone who is not you play a druid that is not your druid that way.

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.

Ok Give them this version of barkskin

Spoiler

While your at it include the even older version of cause wounds(?)/harm(?) that set hp to a single digit on a failed save & a bunch of other unnerfed spells from the past. Citing old editions brings in the toys of old editions. Might as well revert wildshape & bring back the natural spell feat too. It's telling how the only thing people want to bring forward from old editions is to nerf armor proficiency while everything else that made up for that difference is stuff people don't even want to discuss.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not a parenthetical aside and in the PHB it's not clarified at all. It's right there in the proficiency line. It makes sense that it's in parenthesis because it's an exception to the proficiency rule and it breaks the normal structure of the proficiency line.

It is literally a parenthetical aside, and it's not an exception. If it was an exception, it would have been written as "druids are not proficient in metal armors." Instead, they wrote it as a choice the druid makes.

Sage advice does call it a taboo but says nothing about it being optional.

"If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. [...] As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."

They didn't say "druids aren't proficient in metal armor." They said "talk to your DM; it's not going to hurt anything if your druid wears metal, but it might not be appropriate to the campaign's theme and flavor." They wouldn't say that if it were about breaking a rule.

Plus, every other one of Crawford's tweets on druids in metal armor refers to it as a taboo.

All rules can be modified if the DM allows it, it's called house rules. House rules are perfectly fine. For example, I would let a rogue sneak attack with a greatsword. However, I don't claim that sneak attacking with any weapon you are proficient with is a rule, it's a house rule.

I don't care how you run your game. Pretending it's not "really" a rule because you don't like it is what I don't get.

I'm not pretending it's not really a rule because I don't like it. I'm claiming it's not really a rule because it's specifically a cultural taboo with no mechanical or social consequences for breaking it. (Seriously, I asked you what the penalties are. Well?)

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Well WOTC could have separated fluff and function and presented them distinctly ... hmmm. Guess you can't do that.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe it's actually made of crystals. D&D has always said that gems have negligible weight, so a suit made of crystals should by definition be very light-weight. After all, the main selling point of elven chain is that it's so light you can wear it under your clothes. And crystals aren't subject to heat metal...

(In all seriousness, I imagine that Gygax or whoever decided that only ferrous metals were subjected to heat metal probably didn't want to go around melting people's gold pieces/XP.)

And hey, I like Bunnies & Burrows!

Page 27 of the DMG says it's metal,

"Chain, Elfin, is a finely wrought suit of chain which is of thinner links but stronger metal. It is obtainable only from elvenkind who do not sell it."

It's probably mithril.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, that is fluff basis for the rule. If rules that are based on fluff are not rules, that's like 95% of the rules gone.

Yes. That's called the GM altering the rules. Same as with any other rule. That you cannot ignore this prohibition otherwise should make it crystal clear that it is a binding rule for the players.

So, name some other entirely fluff-based rules that have zero mechanical or social penalties for breaking them.

Druid armour restriction is written in the text.

As a parenthetical aside written as a cultural taboo, not as an actual rule.

Druids don't wear metal armour just like non-finesse weapons don't add sneak attack damage. The RAW penalty for a druid wearing metal armour is the same than the RAW penalty for adding the sneak attack dice to your great sword's damage.

There is no penalty for adding sneak attack dice to a greatsword's damage because you don't add sneak attack dice to a greatsword. Since druids are proficient in Medium armor, and there's no such thing as proficiency in armor based on its material, what's the penalty for a druid wearing a metal chain shirt?

 

[Faolyn]

Page 27 of the DMG says it's metal,

"Chain, Elfin, is a finely wrought suit of chain which is of thinner links but stronger metal. It is obtainable only from elvenkind who do not sell it."

It's probably mithril.

I was being mostly facetious. It was either saying that or saying "it's an alloy."