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

[Yaarel]

Unimaginable? Really?
If you are being colorful or hyperbolic, please stop. It isn't helpful.
Because if the issue is really that you honestly cannot imagine it... that's really not an issue we will address with rules discussion.

I dont understand the tone with regard to studded leather? Is it implying that because D&D is a fantasy game that I must like and acquiesce to studded leather?

I consider studded leather to be as nonsensical as using a fur loincloth as armor.

 

[Undrave]

What I don't understand is not understanding it.

Because it's not worded like the rules of the game are worded.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, here's a place where we might want to slow down.

"...misunderstanding of what 'natural' is," deserves some unpacking. You do realize that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a universal understanding of what is "natural", yes?

You, personally, here and now have an understanding of what natural is. Are you sure that everyone you are talking to has the same understanding? Do you expect that people in your own world 50 years ago, or 100, or 300 or 1000 years ago by necessity have your understanding? Probably not.

Do you expect a druid in a fantasy world by necessity needs to share your 21st century, no-magic understanding?

The Druid's prohibitions are reflective not of your understanding, but the understanding of their own religion, culture, and indeed, the understanding of the gods/spirits/entities/forces that result in the Druid's power. Ergo... within the fictional world, your understanding... would probably be incorrect.

I can accept that people have had different understandings of "nature" over the centuries. Maybe someone is going to come by and change that understanding in a thousand years by finding out that all metal was created by aliens in the ancient past.

But, given our current understanding and use of the terms... how would you justify that metal is unnatural? The core of a living planet (with a Dynamo that creates a magnetosphere) is metal. Metal is found in the earth, not created by people. Metal is found in the heart of stars. It is part of the natural world.

Do I expect an ancient person from 700 BCE to understand all of that? No. Do I expect them to know that they found iron in the ground? Yes.

Do I expect spirits literally tied to nature to understand that metal is found in nature? Yes. Look at the Xorn. It is an elemental being from the Plane of Earth and it eats metal and gems. The Elemental plane of Earth is made up of about four things. Dirt, Stone, Gems, and Metal. How could anyone look at that and say metal is an unnatural object? Are clouds unnatural? Soot and Ash?

There are even animals that naturally consume and add metals to their body structures, like certain mollusks and the Blood Worm.

Finally, in settings with Nature Gods... won't those gods know all this? And since Druids worship the god, and it is the god's decrees that they follow... why is the god telling them this lie?

And if you want a world where metal is unnatural, and druids reject it... then you have to go all the way. Druids wouldn't use metal weapons or tools. They wouldn't use coinage. And see how quickly that falls apart at the table when you tell druids that they have to reject gold and any item made of metal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Btw the whole “wizards can’t cast healing spells” is BS and not a rule either. My warlock took the feat to give me a 1st level spell and 2 cantrips and got healing that she then used slots to uo cast. Any wizard can do that.
If we take my Druid cleric paliden and swap out wizard for Druid I don’t lose the ability to wear armor and I don’t lose the ability to heal.

Good point. I forgot about taking the feats to gain healing spells. Artificer Initiate allows wizards to cast cure wounds up to 9th level.

Plus wizards get Wish, which heals.

And remove curse, which is considered under the "healing" umbrella by removing status effects. And dispel magic for the same thing.

 

[Yaarel]

No. It's more than that. Wizards also lack proficiency, but there's no taboo. It has also been likened to being a vegetarian with the taboo not to eat meat. The Sage Advice isn't a rule, but it is more than just a simple lack of proficiency.

Please quote the official rules in the Players Handbook that says Druids have a "taboo".

No. It does not say, "Proficient with light and medium armor except for metal armors." It says, "Won't wear metal armor." That's says very strongly that they just don't like wearing it(taboo). While not a rule, it's still more than a simple lack of proficiency, even if you go by the PHB alone. The Sage Advice just clarifies it more.

I will find the page in a moment if you need, but the PH explicitly says the Druid class is only proficient with (quote) "(non-metal) armor".

The unfortunate wording in the class description ONLY refers to proficiency. The distacting verb "will" has no more force than "do".

 

[Yaarel]

Exactly.There is in-fiction realism for why dragons exist as they do. I'm not aware of any such in-fiction explanation for studded leather. That's why saying that this here thing is unrealistic isn't a good reason for that unrealistic thing over there to be okay.

Exactly.

If the Players Handbook said that studded leather means wyrmling scale, or whatever, that would be a special material that I would not object to.

 

[Maxperson]

Please quote the official rules in the Players Handbook that says Druids have a "taboo".


I will find the page in a moment if you need, but the PH explicitly says the Druid class is only proficient with (quote) "(non-metal) armor".

The unfortunate wording in the class description ONLY refers to proficiency. The distacting verb "will" has no more force than "do".

The shortened version on page 45 is most likely in error. The longer version exists in two different spots and is therefore, more likely due to the increased length AND more appearances. In any case, at best it's non-proficient due to page 45 AND taboo due to page 65 and 164(I think).

 

[Maxperson]

Please quote the official rules in the Players Handbook that says Druids have a "taboo".

Page 65 and page 164(I think. It's in that area). "Will not" is a class choice, not due to non-proficiency.

 

[Chaosmancer]

At the end of the day, there are just so many solutions to this issue.

1) Make it explicitly a choice and tradition. The players who care about the tradition will choose not to wear metal armor. The ones who don't care will. And it isn't really an issue unless you have some need to force players to fit your personal aesthetic.

2) Make druids non-profiecient with Metal Armor. This does nothing for metal shields, because a shield is a shield, but it means that druids start off unable to effectively use metal armors. Then, if they have a racial ability, take the feats, multi-class or anything else... let them wear the armor. The current most strict reading of these rules take a character who has spent multiple levels wearing armor, then has them strip out of that the moment they learn druidic magic by taking the class... but not from feats.

Addendum: Don't Rangers also use nature magic and are super into nature? No restrictions on them using metal armor. So, I guess if you want Druidic magic to disappear in metal armor, you need to explain ranger magic as being different. And also explain why Druidic magic gained from a god is different than clerical magic from a god or warlock magic from a fey being.

3) If you truly can't possibly stand the prescence of any druid wearing metal armor no matter what... then at least make non-metal armors easily available. The designers themselves said this is not a mechanical balance issue, and not every druid is going to want to ask the party to go on a special quest to get basic armors... then ask them to go on a later even more special quest to get magical versions of that armor. Plenty of people make armor out of the hides of monsters. That's why you have something called "hide armor" made from the hides of things killed by other people. If you can sell wolf pelts without breaking your world, surely you can sell the exoskeletons of giant insects that are known to attack farmers. Or giant swamp gators. Or arctic super predators. Even if you want this stuff to be super special and rare and not just on the shelf... have them get it from a retired adventurer or a retired hunter.


Three really easy solutions.

 

[Umbran]

There is in-fiction realism for why dragons exist as they do.

Eh. "In fiction"? Whose fiction? Mine? Yours? The Monster Manual's? Some novel from 20 years ago?

Dragons fly. I challenge you to find in the 5e PHB, DMG, or MM a textual statement justifying dragons flying. I don't think you'll find one. If I am correct, then if you have one, it is not the game giving you one.

I'm not aware of any such in-fiction explanation for studded leather.

You need the game to spell it out for you?

See above. "I will take my own justification for dragon flight, but I need the game to give me a fictional reason for the efficacy of studded leather armor," is not a terribly consistent position.

Anyone who wants to accept that their rejection of studded leather really amounts to "I just don't like it, it grinds my gears" without then trying to lay on some "TRVTH!" justification will probably find this discussion becomes a whole lot less contentious for them.

If we accept it as a matter of taste, then the questions aren't about what is RIGHT or WRONG, but "How do each of us like to deal with this point?"

It then also follows for the druid armor thing - it is okay to just like and dislike stuff, people!