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

[mrpopstar]

No, because can not and will not mean very different things. Also, it would still be a poorly constructed rule if it said “can not” because it would still fail to lay out what happens if you try. But at least it would be a statement about what the character is capable of instead of what they’re willing to do. The latter dictates for me my character’s thoughts and decisions. The former just informs me of a limitation of my character’s abilities.

It dictates your character's will to about the same degree as alignment and personality characteristics. Just play along!

 

[DnD Warlord]

They describe how a typical member of the class behaves (which, incidentally, is what I interpret the metal armor restriction to do as well. It’s only if you interpret it as a rule about what PCs of the class can do instead of a description of how members of the class typically behave that it creates an agency problem).

As far back as 96 I saw players play wizards that were not studying tombs (it actually made them more akin to what today we would call a sorcerer or warlock) in 3e I saw someone play a pally that basically said F the gods I am a good person I follow my own way. By 4e we refluffed so much that I can’t even begin to tell you.

this is why I am so surprised to see people enforcing fluff flavor text as if it was a hard rule.
Your warlock must have a patron.
Your sorcerer must have blood of the dragon
Your Druid must never touch an armor they are prof in
Heck “wizards can’t cast healing spells”

 

[DnD Warlord]

It dictates your character's will to about the same degree as alignment and personality characteristics. Just play along!

Interesting. By the end of 3e we had stopped useing alignement too. I wonder if there is an overlap.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You don’t see a problem with a class you have to sign away your player agency to be allowed to play?

Don't be over dramatic! You don't sign away your player agency. You agree to accept a trope of the class when playing said class.

No, they don’t. They describe how a typical member of the class behaves (which, incidentally, is what I interpret the metal armor restriction to do as well. It’s only if you interpret it as a rule about what PCs of the class can do instead of a description of how members of the class typically behave that it creates an agency problem).

Well, no. Clerics actually do receive their powers from gods and wizards actually receive their powers from magic books. These things are not optional either and they do have implications.

And serious question to you and everyone: has this actually ever come up in game? Has there ever been a situation where this actually mattered? Or is it perhaps that people just play druids, do not try to equip metal armour and the whole thing never comes up?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As far back as 96 I saw players play wizards that were not studying tombs

I mean… just because you’re a wizard, doesn’t mean you’re a necromancer.

 

[Charlaquin]

It dictates your character's will to about the same degree as alignment and personality characteristics. Just play along!

Two other famously controversial rules elements.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean… just because you’re a wizard, doesn’t mean you’re a necromancer.

Gods no! I'm just there to rob the dead and re-kill the ones that get uppity, not bring them back.

 

[Laurefindel]

You don’t see a problem with a class you have to sign away your player agency to be allowed to play?

No, they don’t. They describe how a typical member of the class behaves (which, incidentally, is what I interpret the metal armor restriction to do as well. It’s only if you interpret it as a rule about what PCs of the class can do instead of a description of how members of the class typically behave that it creates an agency problem).

It’s a small and specific part of your player agency but I agree with you that the lack of stated conséquences takes away your ability to make a choice as a character.

im fine with it because I’m the kind of DM that likes the latitude of this imprecise rule, but the PHB is of no help here. For all we know, you’re simply kicked out of your circle and may longer benefit from the organisation you never cared about anyway…

My interprétation, which has no foundation in RAW in any ways, is that wild shape is an ability that allows druids to « wear » the skin of animals (or other form) as long as they don’t wear the skin of a metal-clad warrior. To take the form of animals, animals must be their armor. It’s a Celtic-like geis, if you violate it, you lose your wild shape. For how long? I don’t know. From a moon (for a minor offence) to permanently ( for a careless and regular use)

 

[mrpopstar]

Interesting. By the end of 3e we had stopped useing alignement too. I wonder if there is an overlap.

In Dungeons & Dragons druids behave like X, lawful good creatures behave like Y, and creatures who believe in the Ideal of respect behave like Z.

However, you're not formally penalized if you're unable to enjoy yourself given all these agency-violating restrictions that are sure to ruin your play experience.

 

[mrpopstar]

Two other famously controversial rules elements.

Only for those who insist.