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

[Maxperson]

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

1e and 3e say it outright. If you are a druid in those editions and wear metal armor, you have no access to your magical powers while wearing it, and in 3e for 24 hours afterwards.

 

[J.Quondam]

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.

It was long ago determined that's a typo. It's supposed to read "meal" not "metal".
Historically in D&D, elfin mail was crafted of sausage links, vegetarians notwithstanding.

eta: Sorry. I'll stop.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Druids have wildshape, elves see in the dark, wizards don't know healing spells, fireball does fire damage and like half the rules in the book.

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

You repeating it doesn't make it true. You don't get to choose which rules in the book are rules. (Unless you're the GM, and then that's called making houserules.)

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?

Druid won't wear metal chain shirt. That's the rule. Genuinely, what part of this you don't get? You don't add sneak attack damage to the great sword attack for exactly the same reason than druids don't wear metal armour: the rules don't allow it. There is no penalty, it simply isn't allowed. How are you able to grasp it with the sneak attack, but not with the armour?

 

[Maxperson]

Except there are plenty of people here (and enough asking to get a sage advice answer) that DONT read it as a rule but as a bit of flavor text.

if it was meant to be a rule I WILL say it was badly written, but I’m still not sold that it was ever meant to be a rule.

Especially since the Sage Advice goes out of its way to not use the world rule. "Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor..." is at the beginning of the first paragraph. They could have said rule, but went out of their way to use taboo instead. Then it goes on to say that, "Druids don't lack the ability to wear metal armor." which means that they can in fact wear it. Literally nothing stops them except for their taboo choice. They then liken it to being a vegetarian and the taboo they have against eating meat. Great example. Vegetarians break that taboo for reasons all the time. They don't cease being vegetarians just because they made an exception.

Later it goes on to say that if your druid wants to wear metal armor in a manner that breaks the class's story(ie not as a rare exception), then you need to talk to the DM. If you just need to wear armor for a specific good reason and then will be taking it off again, you aren't departing from the class's story and do not need to talk to the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

"Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal." If your druid wears armour made of metal armour, was this rule followed?

What rule?

 

[J.Quondam]

What if the player asks the DM: "What happens if my druid tries to wear metal armor?"
What happens if the druid asks an archdruid of their Circle: "What happens if I try to wear metal armor?"

 

[Maxperson]

But it is not allowed game action. Or picking up it is, but donning it isn't. Because the druid rule says druids won't do that. Yes, weird, but not unclear. Like @Snarf Zagyg has several times pointed out, in older editions a lot things just worked like this.

But as the actual rules of most of the older editions, including 1e state, the penalty for breaking that in-fiction rule was simply the loss of magical powers and spells. You weren't actually prevented from putting it on.

 

[Maxperson]

Just in time for the Olympics? Wonder if we can get it in the next series of games "Pointless arguments that have no real bearing because the DM will just make the final decision"? Maybe?

The other two threads went 107 and 642 posts. Ladies and gentlemen, we have won the gold! Now if only we could wear it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Which is completely different than, "The rogue will not by personal choice, add sneak attack damage to greatswords."

 

[Maxperson]

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?

And the language. "Will not" = choice. It is not written in a proscriptive context.