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

[Yaarel]

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).

Which is the error?

One place says the non-metal armor proficiency clearly.

The other place strangely uses a verb "will" instead of "do", a wording nonexistent anywhere else, but otherwise agrees: non-metal armor proficiency only.



The benefit of taking the clear statement as the intent is:
• The D&D rules are consistent.
• The D&D rules are normal. A class grants some proficiencies but not others. A character can get a proficiency from an other source.
• There is a mechanical penalty if lacking an armor proficiency, and this applies normally.
• The rules avoid weird interpretations that dont exist anywhere else that harm the game.

 

[Xetheral]

So... how many of you think this "It is a rule - it is not a rule" argument will ever resolve?

Or now is it simply an endurance contest? The last one to say "It IS!" or "It IS NOT!" wins?

I would also note that in 1500 posts it has not yet been discussed whether everyone is using the same definition of the word "rule". Arguing about whether or not something meets a definition without first establishing that definition seems doomed to be inherently unresolvable.

From my standpoint it seems highly likely that everyone who has expressed an opinion on whether or not it's a rule is simultaneously correct, under whatever definition of "rule" they happen to be using.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is the error?

One place says the non-metal armor proficiency clearly.

The other place strangely uses a verb "will" instead of "do", a wording nonexistent anywhere else, but otherwise agrees: non-metal armor proficiency only.

No. The other place gives proficiency with ALL medium armors and then gives the taboo of "will not wear." At no point on page 65 or page 164 does it say or imply that they are non-proficient with metal armors.

The benefit of taking the clear statement as the intent is:
• The D&D rules are consistent.
• The D&D rules are normal. A class grants some proficiencies but not others. A character can get a proficiency from an other source.
• There is a mechanical penalty if lacking an armor proficiency, and this applies normally.
• The rules avoid weird interpretations that dont exist anywhere else that harm the game.

Regardless of whether you rule that they are proficient with metal armor or not, "Will not wear." is a class taboo on wearing it at all. It is not a statement of proficiency.

 

[Yaarel]

@Maxperson

The Players Handbook (164) says:

These are the "proficiencies gained".

It doesnt say, these are proficiencies lost!

Where it repeats, "Druids will not wear armor made of metal", it simply means, if the multiclass class character didnt already have metal armor proficiency, the character cannot gain it from the Druid class.

 

[Yaarel]

No. The other place gives proficiency with ALL medium armors and then gives the taboo of "will not wear." At no point on page 65 or page 164 does it say or imply that they are non-proficient with metal armors.

"Proficiency: will not wear", means, will not have proficiency while wearing.

 

[Yaarel]

Regardless of whether you rule that they are proficient with metal armor or not, "Will not wear." is a class taboo on wearing it at all. It is not a statement of proficiency.

The interpolation of a nonexisting taboo, is a houserule, to explain WHY the Druid lacks proficiency with metal armor.

"Proficiencies: will not wear" = Will not be proficient wearing

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson

The Players Handbook (164) says:

These are the "proficiencies gained".

Yep. And what do you gain. Light armor, medium armor and shields. Full stop. The parentheses AFTER the proficiency list is the taboo of the class, not a proficiency restriction. Same with page 65. If they were restrictions, they wouldn't be worded with a "will not wear," which means by choice, not because they are unable.

For you to be correct, the two full versions that grant full medium armor proficiency have to be in error and the short version that appears only once has to be the correct one. That's highly unlikely.

 

[Maxperson]

The interpolation of a nonexisting taboo, is a houserule, to explain WHY the Druid lacks proficiency with metal armor.

"Proficiencies: will not wear" = Will not be proficient wearing

Dude. The designers have clarified to you that it is indeed written to be a taboo.

 

[lingual]

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.

The founding fathers probably just meant brigandine armor but thought studded leather was more descriptive. I think the concept of studded leather being brigandine armor is okay.

 

[Yaarel]

Dude. The designers have clarified to you that it is indeed written to be a taboo.

Sage Advice clarified little.

Because of Sage Advice, I now know that a non-proficient Druid wont "explode" in metal armor.

Otherwise, the reference to a non-5e "taboo", only exlains why the Druid class lacks the proficiency.

It is still normal to gain this proficiency from an other source.



Probably, the Players Handbook needs errata to rephrase wording that many players evidentally find ambiguous.