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

[Crimson Longinus]

No, that is only semantically different than “Druids won’t wear metal armor.” The content of the statement is still about what they don’t do, rather than what they do.

That's just how things sometimes are. "Vegans only eat food made of plants and mushrooms."

 

[Charlaquin]

It's the ruckus I'm labeling ridiculous, not people or their feelings.

What occurs to me is that all the time spent arguing in genuine earnestness could instead be spent actually playing the game.

These things are not actually dichotomous. We do actually play the game. Arguing about the game on the internet is another, separate activity I engage in, on and off during the other 160 hours or so a week that I’m not playing.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's just how things sometimes are. "Vegans only eat food made of plants and mushrooms."

Except that isn’t necessarily always true. Sometimes, a vegan has to make an exception to their usual dietary restrictions out of ignorance, politeness, necessity, or convenience. That doesn’t make them not vegans. Moreover, veganism doesn’t create a player agency issue because it’s a life choice, not an RPG character class.

 

[Faolyn]

This is why I shouldn't bother with serious responses any more. It's a simple and clear rule. Druids will not wear metal armor. Therefore, in my campaign, when you chose druid as your PC's class you chose to not wear metal armor. If your PC wears metal armor they are not a druid. I don't care what happens in other people's games. I'm sure some ignore the restriction completely.

So I've asked you before: if they're not a druid, what are they?

Never mind, saw your answer to DnD Warlord.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but the game doesn’t say you won’t use an axe if you’re an elf.

There's a bit more difference between an elf and a dwarf than that...

No, but the restriction may be keeping players who want to play druids from doing so.

Sure. But all classes effectively have restrictions so this is not unique to druid.

No, it’s not the same thing. “Druids wear armor made of plant and animal products” would still leave room for a player to decide to wear armor made of metal, perhaps in addition to those other armors. “Druids won’t wear armor made of metal” does not.

Like I initially answered, I rule that the player has full authority over what their own character will and won’t do. Druids in general have a taboo against wearing metal armor, and breaking that taboo may have social consequences - for example, other members of your Circle won’t approve, and may even excommunicate you if they find out. But you won’t suffer any mechanical penalties for wearing metal armor.

My issue with this is that you effectively force players to choose between playing the themes or getting mechanical benefit. Personally I would find this far more annoying than the restriction.

Except that isn’t necessarily always true. Sometimes, a vegan has to make an exception to their usual dietary restrictions out of ignorance, politeness, necessity, or convenience. That doesn’t make them not vegans.

And then we can quibble about how much you do that and honestly be a vegan. Regardless, they do their best to avoid eating meat.

Moreover, veganism doesn’t create a player agency issue because it’s a life choice, not an RPG character class.

What that has to do with anything? Certainly within the story your character can quit being a druid just like a person can quit being a vegan. You just have to work out what that means mechanically.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a bit more difference between an elf and a dwarf than that...

Yes, and differences between different characters isn’t the issue at hand, so elves not being dwarves was a poor analogy. If it said elves “won’t” use axes, that would be a more appropriate analogy.

Sure. But all classes effectively have restrictions so this is not unique to druid.

All classes have story elements, and if you interpret the druid armor restriction as such, it’s certainly not unique to druids. If you interpret it as a rule about what druid players are allowed to decide their characters will or won’t do, it is unique to druids.

My issue with this is that you effectively force players to choose between playing the themes or getting mechanical benefit. Personally I would find this far more annoying than the restriction.

So attach some sort of penalty to wearing the restricted type of armor.

And then we can quibble about how much you do that and honestly be a vegan. Regardless, they do their best to avoid eating meat.

But we can’t quibble about how much a druid can wear metal armor and be a druid. Because, apparently, it’s a rule that druids “won’t” wear metal armor.

What that has to do with anything? Certainly within the story your character can quit being a druid just like a person can quit being a vegan. You just have to work out what that means mechanically.

Because the construction of the rule, if you interpret it to be such, creates an issue of player agency. Veganism doesn’t because it’s not a character class in an RPG, it’s a life choice. Vegans aren’t players in a game, they’re people in the world.

 

[Faolyn]

But what if the player just takes the sneak attack dice, rolls them and adds them to the damage? And when challenged, just say that they think that the bit about finesse weapons is just outdated fluff based on D&D traditions and not an actual rule. What then?

Then as the DM, I simply reroll the damage dice and use those numbers instead.

You don't seem to understand the difference between fluff and mechanic. "Finesse" has actual rules attached to it. "Will not" is fluff that doesn't have rules to it, because "will not" isn't "cannot." (Edit: and because there's no rules or even suggestions for what happens if you break the fluff.)

Everything else in 5e that uses the term "will not" is a magical (or pseudo-magical) effect, such as cursed weapons (that you will not part with) the frightened condition (where you will not willingly move closer to the source). Are druids under a no-metal curse?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, "finesse" as a rule was introduced in this edition. Maybe 4e; didn't play that one. I'm looking at the 3e SRD and don't see the word "finesse" there. So I don't know how anyone can say that finesse weapons are just outdated fluff when they're new mechanics.

What prevents them is the rule clearly written in the book. How that rule is justified within the fiction is up to the player and the GM.

No, it's not clearly written in the book. "Will not" doesn't say why they won't or what prevents them from doing so. Is it just sheer willpower? A force field? What?

It is a piece of text giving explicit instructions in middle of rule section of the book amongst other rules. Of course it is a rule!

That's a bit like saying because tieflings are in the Uncommon Races section, you must ensure that they remain uncommon in your game.

 

[mrpopstar]

So a GM who says of your druid "No, you will not strap on a metal shield, because RAW" is not playing along.

I said "play along!" in reference to the game's outline of character behaviors.

Your druid is not donning metal armor if you're playing along in that context.

But their content is meaningfully different.

How is "do behave" different than "do not behave" in terms of being instructive and challenging notions of agency?

Edit: Ah, it boils down to the word "will" ?

These things are not actually dichotomous. We do actually play the game. Arguing about the game on the internet is another, separate activity I engage in, on and off during the other 160 hours or so a week that I’m not playing.

This is not directed at you specifically, but I often look at post counts and wonder how it's possible that people hold down jobs, obtain an education, maintain relationships with family and friends, pursue other interests, do something physical, feed themselves, sleep well, gain experience with multiple other roleplaying games, play D&D, AND find time to argue on the internet.

I've been a member of this community for 17 years and if baffles me.

Like, literally, what is the secret to this time management!?

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Sigh. There is no such thing as proficiency with metal armor. You can read that text to say that they won't use metal armor, but it clearly says that they can. You are misunderstanding the text.

And you misunderstood my question. Two breastplates. Absolutely identical in shape and in the way they're put on. Different materials. Why would you not know how to put them both on when they are exactly the same?

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, to the best of my knowledge, "finesse" as a rule was introduced in this edition. Maybe 4e; didn't play that one. I'm looking at the 3e SRD and don't see the word "finesse" there. So I don't know how anyone can say that finesse weapons are just outdated fluff when they're new mechanics.

Weapon Finesse was a feat in 3.X. You took the feat for a particular class of weapons and could use Dex instead of Str for attack rolls (but not damage rolls) with that type of weapon. 4e rolled that into classes by having Dex based classes use Dex for attack (and damage) rolls by default. 5e made it a property of certain weapons.