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

[mrpopstar]

Veering into the territory of real-world religion (which inspired the game's basic take on druids and clerics), there are passages in the Bible which refer to "clothing yourself with Christ." The justification for doing so being that it would protect you from the temptations of the material world.

Working with that understanding of what it means to "clothe yourself" in religious terms, it makes a little more sense why it would be taboo for druids to wear anything other than the natural armors of beasts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think that is true, but I'm not gonna verify that as I don't have anything pre 3e at hand. I'll trust @Snarf Zagyg will handle this.

That being said, inability to use spells and wildshape was my suggestion for consequence-based version of the armour limitation.

I've already been over this- this is a very peculiar "Max" reading that I've never seen that relies on some stray wording from Gygax and ignores the actual rules which are set forth in Eldritch Wizardry, the DMG, and the table at the front of the PHB, and are confirmed in all the extant contemporaneous materials.

In addition, it comes with its own problem (if you accepted it) - it would be contrary to what Max is saying now (which is that stray wordings without specific consequences can't be rules ... ahem). Because it doesn't ... have ... any ... actual ... rule about what happens.

Finally, by using "spoils" instead of any other words (such as "interferes"), it raises the uncomfortable inference that the wearing of metal at any time would forever destroy the ability of a druid to be a druid, which is the same (with added lore reason) as the rest of the 1e rules such as Magic Users cannot wear armor.

Milk that "spoils" is no longer good.
Spoliation of evidence is evidence that has been destroyed.

That's why Gygax uses the word in that way- "The reverse of the spell putrefies food and drink, even spoiling holy water. Unholy water is spoiled by purify water."

"The exorcise spell, once begun, cannot be interrupted, or else it is spoiled and useless."

So we can either accept the fact that the PHB and DMG lay out the armor rules (in a matter consistent with Eldritch Wizardry) consistency, or we can accept the weird parenthetical lore that Max is using that "metallic armor {destroys} the druid's magic powers."

6 of one ... half a dozen of the other. It's not really worth going into, since, again, OD&D and 1e players were very comfortable with these sorts of rules (Magic Users couldn't wear armor because REASONS, for example).

 

[Oofta]

So again I ask, what does “not being a Druid anymore” mean?

do I have to pick a different class and rebuild the character?

my 5th level dwarf Druid takes a breast plate and puts it on, so now he is “not a Druid” do I rebuild those 5 levels? Maybe now I am a rouge 2 fighter 3? Or does it have to be nature cleric? Or do you homebrew an ex Druid?

I imagine the conversation would go something like

Player: I put on the metal armor​

DM (me): druids will not wear metal armor​

Player: well, I chose to​

DM: you decided you would not to wear metal armor when you became a druid.​

Player: I changed my mind​

DM: Okay, you explode​

Player: ...​

DM: everyone within a 20 foot radius of your PC takes [start rolling all of my dice] ... just kidding. You are no longer a druid.​

Player: what does that mean?​

DM: you have the same HP and proficiencies you had before but no druid supernatural powers. You can't cast spells, shapechange or anything else specific to druids.​

Feel free to handle it differently in your game.

 

[Charlaquin]

@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.

I just don’t see it as meaning to indicate lack of proficiency, especially because the Sage Advice doesn’t make any sense to me if that’s the intent. But, I do think that interpretation makes a much better rule than what I understand the intent to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't been swayed by the idea that a statement of will is a "violation of player agency." Given the tone of it, you'd think we were discussing bodily autonomy.

Druids won't wear metal armor in the game of Dungeons & Dragons. If that makes anyone feel violated, or that they can't roleplay under those conditions, they can speak to the Dungeon Master.

This is a social game. It isn't grossly unjust that anyone might have to engage with the DM to build the character of their dreams.

I didn’t say it was grossly unjust. I just think the player’s control over their character’s thoughts and decisions is a line that the rules shouldn’t cross.

 

[DnD Warlord]

DM: you have the same HP and proficiencies you had before but no druid supernatural powers. You can't cast spells, shapechange or anything else specific to druids.

So yeah, that is WAY more rule breaking then even IF it is a rule about the metal armor

but okay, so my 1/2/x Druid paliden cleric loses nothing… I can’t shape shift anyway and my spell casting comes from the multi class chart not the Druid chart and cantrips are in no way “specific” to the Druid class.

wait maybe I can’t prep goodberry anymore

 

[Plaguescarred]

So again I ask, what does “not being a Druid anymore” mean?

A druid in metal armor becomes a DROID ☺

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So what. None of that means anything to what the Sage Advice does show. It also doesn't prohibit a druid from taking Great Weapon Fighting, so clearly big two handed swords and axes are granted to druids by the Sage Advice, right?

 

[mrpopstar]

I didn’t say it was grossly unjust. I just think the player’s control over their character’s thoughts and decisions is a line that the rules shouldn’t cross.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I performed my due diligence by skimming past threads on the topic and the faction advancing the "player agency" argument does so generally with an abundance of exaggeration.

For example, the game isn't controlling your character's thoughts.

 

[Maxperson]

Druids won't wear metal armor in the game of Dungeons & Dragons. If that makes anyone feel violated, or that they can't roleplay under those conditions, they can speak to the Dungeon Master.

But again, that only applies if the player wants to change the story of the druid class to get rid of the taboo. If the druid simply feels that it's necessary in this instance to wear armor as an exception, the story involving the taboo hasn't changed, so there's no requirement to talk to the DM first.