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

[Faolyn]

I will never grok where this mindset toward Druids even comes from.

I imagine it comes from the same mindset where, in Cyberpunk settings, having cybernetic implants eats away at your soul.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

We are simply quibbling over the hardness of the limits. Yes, the druid armour rule is unusual in its bluntness, but classes 'forcing' behaviour is not unique, nor weird.

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

Yes, that is what I would do.

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.

Game rules often fail to adequate represent minute nuanced that exist in real life. They're rough simplifications.

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.

You can choose to be a vegan or a druid, and you can choose to stop being a vegan or a druid.

 

[J.Quondam]

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

Indeed. And I say "play along!" in reference to the game's outline of GM behaviors... especially for a small issue like this, deriving from a poorly-written half-rule.

 

[J.Quondam]

Anyway, I know @Charlaquin has spoken well and at length on player agency, but I'll go ahead and add specific my 2cp:

To my mind, player agency has nothing to do with allowing violations of rules or canon; nor does it have anything to do with allowing a player's character to do whatever they wish in the game. All those attitude, imo, might more properly called "player entitlement," and seem to result mostly from conflicting genre expectations; metagame concerns; or sometimes just plain ol' fashioned a-holery. As issues, they're all handled exclusively in OOC conversations.

What player agency IS is simply the right of the player to determine what their character thinks, and by extension, what that character attempts to do*. The player is NOT entitled to have their PC succeed or avoid consequences. All the player gets is the right to have their character state that they are trying. Period.

So player agency ONLY allows a player to say "My fighter casts fireball!" Implicitly this is just an attempt; it doesn't actually mean that fighter must or should be able to cast fireballs.

Likewise in this specific case, player agency means a player has the right to say, "My druid will strap on this metal shield!" in some situation. Player agency does not mean the GM has to allow that attempt to succeed.

• The GM is free to prevent it from succeeding: "You try, but when you touch the shield, your hand passes through it. You can't put it on!"
• The GM is also free to give a consequence: "When you put it on, it heats up with the rage of your goddess, Gaia. Take 4d8 fire damage every round til you take it off-- and expect to atone next time you visit your Circle sibs!" Or even "You lose all your druid powers!"
• And of course, as several people here have already pointed out, the GM can also...

• fiat the situation away ("Fortunately, it's a wooden shield.");
• declare a red line ("Sorry, but we don't delve into trivializing religious doctrine at this table.")
• or just ask for clarification OOC: "Are you sure? You know that's against the strictures of your order."

None of those things results in violating RAI or lore; and all of them keep intact the player's agency, their control over their own character's thoughts. That only "problem" that arises is that some of those options are technically not RAW, by virtue of conflicting with a single, poorly-chosen word in a single poorly-worded rule.

When a GM declares-- RAW or not-- that a PC "will not" do something, that is violating player agency. Period. The appropriate way to handle a bad RAW is to "just play along" and make the ruling, and offer an in-game effect or rationale to achieve a result that preserves RAI, lore, or whatever the GM/table deems appropriate for that game.
Easy peasy!


* Which, of course, is why many tables are especially careful when dealing with dominations, charms, etc.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Do you, or would you, do the exact same thing to clerics who ever act in a way that goes against their gods' portfolios? Strip away all their supernatural powers until you decide they have earned them back?

Would you inform the druid's player that this was an action you would take, or would you just spring it on them as a "hah, hah! gotcha!" moment as in your example above? I know if you were DMing for me and sprung it on one of your players like in the way you said above, I would probably never trust you as a DM again.

 

[Charlaquin]

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" ?

“I do eat lunch” doesn’t mean the same thing as “I do not eat breakfast.” Likewise, as “Druids do wear armor made of plant and animal products” doesn’t mean the same thing as “Druids do not wear armor made of metal.” The word “will” is a separate issue, and yes, it is what makes it an agency issue. “I can not walk” doesn’t mean the same thing as “I will not walk,” and likewise “Druids can not wear metal armor” doesn’t mean the same thing as “Druids will not wear metal armor.”

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!?

Eh, I tend to post in spare moments between other things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

That isn't to say that there are no issues with taking it to mean that way though, because it then opens up potential questions of how proficiency interacts with materials. We can ignore those questions, and assume that it doesn't matter in 99% of all cases, but it does make it a point that could be brought up.

I mean, if I am proficient with nonmetal shields, how does that make sense? What makes a metal shield function differently than a wooden shield? Does that mean that there has to be something for using a turtle shell as a shield. Likely not, but the question is brought up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Then analogous solution to 'what happen if druid wears metal armour' would the Gm just treat their AC to be whatever it would be without that metal armour.

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.)

'Will not' is the rule.

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?

The rules do not tell that. But yes, perhaps they are. That certainly could be one fluff explanation for why the rule exists, albeit it is not the one Crawford offered. Also, do you think those other uses of 'will' are not rules? Do mind control spells actually not work?

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.

IIRC, the general concept of sneak attack being limited to certain weapons is pretty old.

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?

Why has nothing to do it being a rule. Why would be fluff, 'will not' is the 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.

Considering that the GM creates the setting and has explicit permission to alter rules, that hardly matters.

 

[mrpopstar]

Indeed. And I say "play along!" in reference to the game's outline of GM behaviors... especially for a small issue like this, deriving from a poorly-written half-rule.

I understand.

Anyway, I know @Charlaquin has spoken well and at length on player agency, but I'll go ahead and add specific my 2cp:

To my mind, player agency has nothing to do with allowing violations of rules or canon; not does it have anything to do with allowing a player's character to do whatever they wish in the game. All those attitude, imo, might more properly called "player entitlement," and seem to result mostly from conflicting genre expectations; metagame concerns; or sometimes just plain ol' fashioned a-holery. As issues, they're all handled exclusively in OOC conversations.

What player agency IS is simply the right of the player to determine what their character thinks, and by extension, what that character attempts to do. The player is NOT entitled to have their PC succeed or avoid consequences. All the player gets is the right to have their character state that they are trying*. Period.

So player agency ONLY allows a player to say "My fighter casts fireball!" Implicitly this is just an attempt; it doesn't actually mean that fight must or should be able to cast fireballs.

Likewise in this specific case, player agency means a player has the right to say "My druid will strap on this metal shield!" in some situation. Player agency does not mean the GM has to allow that attempt to succeed.

• The GM is free to prevent it from succeeding: "You try, but when you touch the shield, your hand passes through it. You can't put it on."
• The GM is also free to give a consequence: "When you put it on, it heats up with the rage of your goddess, Gaia. Take 4d8 fire damage every round til you take it off-- and expect to atone next time you visit your Circle sibs!" or even "You lose all your druid powers!"
• And of course, as several here have pointed out, the GM can also...

- fiat the situation away ("Fortunately, it's a wooden shield.");
- declare a red line ("Sorry, we don't delve into challenging religious doctrine at this table.")
- or ask for clarification OOC: "Are you sure? You know that's against the strictures of your order."

None of those things results in violating RAI or lore; and all of them keep intact the player's agency, their control over their own character's thoughts. That only "problem" that arises is that some of those options are technically not RAW, by virtue of conflicting with a single, poorly-chosen word in a single poorly-worded rule.

When a GM declares-- RAW or not-- that a PC "will not" do something, that is violating player agency. Period. The appropriate way to handle a bad RAW is to "just play along" and make the ruling, and offer an in-game effect or rationale to achieve a result that preserves RAI, lore, or whatever the GM/table deems appropriate for that game.
Easy peasy!


* Which, of course, is why many tables are especially careful when dealing with dominations, charms, etc.

I appreciate this well-considered write-up!

I want to add to this part:

So player agency ONLY allows a player to say "My fighter casts fireball!" Implicitly this is just an attempt; it doesn't actually mean that fight must or should be able to cast fireballs.

Technically, the players describe what they WANT to do and the Dungeon Master narrates the results. So, it's important to recognize that "my fighter casts fireball!" is a want, not a guaranteed outcome.

 

[tetrasodium]

In essence, a rock attached to a stick is still a mace.

I believe that would be an improvised weapon or a weapon made of privative /fragile materials.