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

[mrpopstar]

You aren't really bound to those, either, though. They are very similar to the druid's situation. The traits, ideals, bonds and flaws are a strong part of your character's personal story, but you can buck the trend if you want to.

That's why I chose them to compare and contrast. They're very much like the druid's situation.

Take the Acolyte ideal of "The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld." That's pretty strong language. MUST be upheld. Now the Acolyte come across an old civilization with ancient traditions of child sacrifice to evil gods. The acolyte is not bound to try and preserve and/or uphold that sort of heinous practice. Exceptions can be made at the choice of the PC(player).

I understand that ideal to be specific to the acolyte's own faith.

The personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws system is not proscriptive, but it does strongly inform the player on how to roleplay the PC.

Prescriptive as opposed to descriptive, not proscriptive.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Forumers are turning a single awkward verb "will" into a mountain of unintended meanings and assumptions. Each assumption then provokes more questions, which in turn, adds soil to the mountain of meanings, that were never there in the first place.

Simply asking me, how can a Druid be non-proficient with metal, is itself, inviting me to answer, thus add to stories, that are all there because of one ambiguous word, "will".

The answer is, the Players Handbook doesnt explain why the Druid is nonproficient. It just states on three pages, that the Druid is only proficient with non-metal armor.

If you want me to invent an answer, that might be appropriate in some settings and not other settings, it might have to do with the fact that the Druid is spellcaster. Because the metal interferes with their magic, the class doesnt feel comfortable in it, and its tradition never learned how to use it.

The problem with the "interferes with magic" approach is, it is nonsense when considering the earth element loves metal.

An other explanation might be positive, rather than negative. The animals love Druids, want to protect Druids, and Druids gain protection from animal skins magically, and more easily, while focusing on druidic spellcasting mastery.

This "animals magically assist Druids" approach is probably more applicable. It explains how an earth Druid becomes proficient with animal armors while not even trying to become proficient with them. In other words, the animals have granted Druids proficiency with animal armors.

But again. The Players Handbook says nothing. Inventing mountain-loads of assumptions from a single verb seems misguided. The Sage Advice explanation, "because 1e Greyhawk", feels dislocated. And the Druid class mechanics and thematics seem incongruous generally.

 

[Yaarel]

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?

There is more than one text.

Page 45 of the Players Handbook:
"
Classes: Armor and Weapon Proficiencies: Druid: "Light and medium armors (nonmetal)"

"

The Druid class is ONLY proficient with "nonmetal" armors.

The Druid class lacks proficiency with metal armors.

 

[lingual]

1. There's no such thing as partial proficiency. Strike one for the erroneous page 45.
2. The more in depth rules for Druids in not one, but TWO other areas say nothing like what page 45 says. Strike two for the erroneous page 45.
3. The Sage Advice literally says, "Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor.", because their proficiency gives them that ability. Strike three for the erroneous Page 45.

The erroneous page 45 is out!

So no errata. I would think your reasons are subjective though. I think this is something they could have errata'ed a long time ago if they thought it was in error.

I don't see where "partial proficiency" is illegal anywhere.

I don't think there's anything in the PHB that actually contradicts page 45. Also, we all have the ability to wear anything. Doesn't mean we are proficient.

I don't think any of this is clear though - as the length of the this thread demonstrates.

 

[Faolyn]

There is more than one text.

Page 45 of the Players Handbook:
"
Classes: Armor and Weapon Proficiencies: Druid: "Light and medium armors (nonmetal)"

Yeah, an abbreviation of what's written in the druid entry.

Nowhere in any of the books does it differentiate armors based on material--only on the basis of light/medium/heavy.

The Druid class is ONLY proficient with "nonmetal" armors.

Untrue. They won't use metal armors, but they are fully proficient in them. Crawford has said so, even: they can use metal armor, but it's taboo. Dwarf druids don't wear metal armor not because they can't but because it's taboo.

The PH specifically says "The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor." Those are the only categories armor comes in.

Please stop claiming they aren't proficient. You have been shown over and over again that that is incorrect.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Passages like this stand out: "A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks."

As would is the past tense form of will, these passages are equally as prescriptive in terms of what any given character thinks or does.

Now imagine people saying THAT was a rule “you can’t use the great sword even if you get prof another way cause the rule says you rather…”

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, an abbreviation of what's written in the druid entry.

Page 45 is clear.

Page 65 is weird and awkward − but is also a formatted abbreviation made unclear because of its brevity.

Page 65 can (and does) agree with the clear statement of page 45.

If page 65 used a single verb "will" intentionally to awkwardly allude to some "story" about the Druid, then the Druid class description would mention and explain this story in a clearer, more helpful, narrative. But the Druid class description says by its omission, there is no special story. The Druid is simply nonproficient.

Page 45 is clear and correct.

Nowhere in any of the books does it differentiate armors based on material--only on the basis of light/medium/heavy.

5e never explicitly grants a class a proficiency and then prohibits its use.

In the case of Druid, the class lacks metal proficiency.

The Druid class utilizes the armor proficiency in a special way, to only apply to nonmetal.

There are many examples of races and classes using a proficiency (including skill proficiencies) in a special way, under specific circumstances.

 

[DnD Warlord]

The thing, is when we come to phobias or indeed even deeply ingrained taboos, the distinction between willingness and ability becomes rather blurred. Can a person suffering from severe arachnophobia pet a tarantula? Physically they can, but they most definitely won't! Is this couldn't or wouldn't? I don't know.

I am terrified of snakes. Any snake poisonnis pet garden huge world eating… I will not touch one and I don’t want to be within 30ft of one.

jerks over the years have made a point to laugh at my fear with both real and fake snakes.

if my life depended on being able to move a deadly viper out of the way I MAY die of freight… but I ALSO may get past my fear for the moment.

if on the other hand someone I love was in danger and I had to go near a snake to save them I think odds are I would.

I am not brave. I would never in a million years be an adventurer.

Comparing “druids won’t wear metal armor” to “Rob won’t touch or go near a snake” seems the perfect reason why it is fluff not a rule.

 

[Yaarel]

I am terrified of snakes. Any snake poisonnis pet garden huge world eating… I will not touch one and I don’t want to be within 30ft of one.

jerks over the years have made a point to laugh at my fear with both real and fake snakes.

if my life depended on being able to move a deadly viper out of the way I MAY die of freight… but I ALSO may get past my fear for the moment.

if on the other hand someone I love was in danger and I had to go near a snake to save them I think odds are I would.

I am not brave. I would never in a million years be an adventurer.

Comparing “druids won’t wear metal armor” to “Rob won’t touch or go near a snake” seems the perfect reason why it is fluff not a rule.

Out of curiosity, do you believe you would be "proficient" in the Animal Handling skill check for a snake?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Lol I should prolly just accept that I won’t get it.