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

[Maxperson]

For those of you who are saying that the Sage Advice backs up your position that the PHB forbids a druid from wearing metal armor, I'd like you to re-read the question. It's not, "Can a druid wear metal armor?" The question is, "What happens IF a druid wears metal armor?" The question that they are answering is AFTER the druid has already worn it in game. At no point is their answer, "The druid can't." Instead it's an explanation of why the lore is the way that it is. Their failure to answer with, "The druid can't." is proof that the druid can.

 

[Maxperson]

Sage Advice sometimes explains some of the rationale that went into a design decision.

Here, it explains why the Druid class doesnt grant metal armor proficiency.

At no point does the Sage Advice say that anywhere. At several points it does say that it is taboo and that they choose not to wear it. You're just flat out wrong with this.

 

[Yaarel]

At no point does the Sage Advice say that anywhere. At several points it does say that it is taboo and that they choose not to wear it. You're just flat out wrong with this.

The Druid class has proficiency with non-metal scale but not with metal scale because of this taboo.

Sage Advice explains why the Druid class chooses to only have proficiency with "(non-metal) armor".

Sage Advice takes for granted that a Druid can get this proficiency from somewhere else like a feat or race or multiclassing. Because that is how 5e rules work.

The misinterpretation invented in this thread that a Druid can NEVER EVER EVER gain metal armor proficiency, didnt occur to Sage Advice.

When mentioning discussing with a DM, Sage Advice is referring to a player who wants the DM to change the armor proficiencies of the Druid class itself. In other words, the Druid class itself would grant metal armor proficiency. The answer to this situation is, of course, the DM can swap in new proficiencies for the Druid class, and it wont break anything, but it wasnt the designers intent to let the Druid class grant metal armor proficiency.

At the same time. A Druid player can get metal armor proficiency from elsewhere, including race, feat, multiclass, etcetera. Sage Advice does not address this situation because it isnt in question.

 

[Maxperson]

The Druid class has proficiency with non-metal scale but not with metal scale because of this taboo.

Sage Advice explains why the Druid class chooses to only have proficiency with "(non-metal) armor".

You keep repeating that, but nowhere in the Sage Advice is this said or implied.

The misinterpretation invented in this thread that a Druid can NEVER EVER EVER gain metal armor proficiency, didnt occur to Sage Advice.

Correct. That isn't there, either. They can at some point, if the DM permits the druid to change the story taboo, not only wear the metal medium armor that they are already proficient with according to the PHB, but gain heavy armor proficiency and wear metal plate mail.

 

[Yaarel]

You keep repeating that, but nowhere in the Sage Advice is this said or implied.

Correct. That isn't there, either. They can at some point, if the DM permits the druid to change the story taboo, not only wear the metal medium armor that they are already proficient with according to the PHB, but gain heavy armor proficiency and wear metal plate mail.

What is the question to Sage Advice?

"What happens if a druid wears metal armor?"

Did it ask, what happens if a Druid takes the Moderately Armored feat? No.

The answer only pertains to the design of the Druid class.

It explains why, the class does grant proficiency with non-metal "scale mail" but not metal scale mail.



After reading Sage Advice, the Druid character can still take the Moderately Armored feat in order to wear metal scale mail.

 

[Maxperson]

What is the question to Sage Advice?

"What happens if a druid wears metal armor?"

Did it ask, what happens if a Druid takes the Moderately Armored feat? No.

The answer only pertains to the design of the Druid class.

It explains why, the class does grant proficiency with non-metal "scale mail" but not metal scale mail.

The Druid character can still take the Moderately Armored feat.

And yet nothing you say is in the Sage Advice. Not one iota of anything saying what you want it to have said.

 

[Yaarel]

And yet nothing you say is in the Sage Advice. Not one iota of anything saying what you want it to have said.

Here is what Sage Advice lacks.

There is nowhere in Sage Advice that prohibits a mountain dwarf from wearing metal armor.

There is nowhere in Sage Advice that prohibits a human Druid from taking the Moderately Armored feat.

There is nowhere in Sage Advice that prohibits a Druid from multiclassing into a class that grants metal armor proficiency.

The normal rules work normally.

Sage Advice is only about the Druid class itself and why a Druid can wear non-metal scale mail.

 

[Yaarel]

OK. So what, exactly, is the difference between a breastplate made of ironwood or chitin and a breastplate made of metal, that makes the knowledge of how to put on a wooden breastplate not translate into knowing how to put on a metal one?

You ask a valid question. "What is the difference between a breastplate of ironwood and a breastplate of metal?"

The answer is. One is non-metal, and the other is metal. According to the 5e rules, the Druid is proficient with non-metal, but not proficient with metal.

Why?

Who knows!

When asked why, Sage Advice, effectively says, "because of 1e".

When we are talking about the 5e Druid, I find that explanation incomplete, conflictive with earth elementalism, conflictive with metal weapons, conflictive with 5e not being the 1e Greyhawk setting, and unsatisfying.

In my eyes, the mechanics of the rules are clear enough. But the flavor of the rules is missing. When Sage Advice attempted to explain the flavor, the answer was insufficient and provoked more questions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Would it be better if the rule said, "Can not"? "Shall not"? No?

Can not would be better, because then at least the book isn’t telling players what their own characters “will” or “won’t” do. It would still have the problem of not making clear what actually happens if a character tries, but at least it wouldn’t overwrite the player’s agency over their character.

Okay, what if the rule was written with consequences? If it had the worst consequences ever, would that make a difference to you? If the effect of wearing metal armor was the same as getting hit with a (no save) disintegrate spell for 500 hit points, is that better?

Yes, infinitely so, because then it would allow the player to be the one to make the decision. It would clearly lay out what happens, and then let the player do with that whatever they will. It’d be a stupid rule, but at least it would be a functional one.

Or do people want manageable consequences?

Obviously that would be preferable.

Or, would you prefer detailed rules about a "taboo breaker" Druid? Like the oath breaker paladin? Or just rules for losing all your powers?

That’d be fine, I guess. Probably more involved than is really necessary, but fine.

I'm saying this to point out that there are two basic issues:
A. I don't like the rule qua rule (I think that Druids should be able to wear metal armor).
B. I don't like the rule's implementation (I don't like the way the rule is worded).

A & B are different. I think that there are people who see the restriction on druids, which carries through- it includes multiclass, feats, whatever. They don't like A. They want the ability to wear metal armor. And they conflate that with B (they don't like the implementation).

B is definitely my issue.

Now, there are other people that are just saying "I don't think it's a rule," but ... you know, I can't help them. At a minimum, even if you truly believe it's not a rule for ... reasons, I'm not sure how you can not understand why other people view it as a rule. shrug

As one of those people who doesn’t think it’s a rule, my position has never been that I don’t understand why other people view it as a rule. I’ve said many times that I consider it a totally valid reading to interpret it as a rule. My assertion has always been that if you interpret it as a rule (as opposed to a statement about the lore of the setting), then it is a rule that violate’s player agency (by dictating what their character will and won’t do).

 

[Yaarel]

Can not would be better, because then at least the book isn’t telling players what their own characters “will” or “won’t” do. It would still have the problem of not making clear what actually happens if a character tries, but at least it wouldn’t overwrite the player’s agency over their character.

Yes, infinitely so, because then it would allow the player to be the one to make the decision. It would clearly lay out what happens, and then let the player do with that whatever they will. It’d be a stupid rule, but at least it would be a functional one.

Obviously that would be preferable.

That’d be fine, I guess. Probably more involved than is really necessary, but fine.

B is definitely my issue.

As one of those people who doesn’t think it’s a rule, my position has never been that I don’t understand why other people view it as a rule. I’ve said many times that I consider it a totally valid reading to interpret it as a rule. My assertion has always been that if you interpret it as a rule (as opposed to a statement about the lore of the setting), then it is a rule that violate’s player agency (by dictating what their character will and won’t do).

@Charlaquin

I understand your interpretation.



At the same time, in my eyes, the word "will" has several meanings. In this context, it is only a casual use of the future tense of the verb "do". (will not wear = do not wear.) The verb doesnt imply anything about player agency or choice.

The context is only about proficiency, and it "will not" apply to wearing metal armor.

To assume so much inference from a single word "will" is strange in D&D. It seems unique to any rules wording anywhere else in 5e.

At the same time, there is a clear text that says that the proficiency only applies to "(non-metal) armor". Surely, this is the plain meaning of "will" too.