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

[Faolyn]

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

Exactly.

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

Wrong. A druid won't use metal armor, but is proficient in all Light and Medium armor, regardless of what materials they have.

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

Name one race or class that only grants part of a proficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Soooo, that's false. It states on one erroneous page that the druid is non-proficient. On two of them it gives them complete proficiency and then AFTER proficiencies are listed with no qualifiers, it gives an in-character reason for druids not to wear metal armor.

If you want to play with a nonsensical, "Druids are proficient with chainmail, but not chainmail," that's your personal rule for your house. It is not RAW.

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.

That doesn't stop their proficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So you think that, "Druids are proficient with chainmail, but not chainmail." makes sense, too? Because that's what your position is arguing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Name one race or class that only grants part of a proficiency.

Warlock.

 

[mrpopstar]

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…”

I wouldn’t fight it if it were. LOL

Me: “I want my rogue to do this!”
DM: “Eh, a rogue wouldn’t do that.”
Me: “Hm, okay. Would a rogue do this other thing then?”
DM: “For sure!”
Me: “Then I want my rogue to do that!”

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn’t fight it if it were. LOL

Me: “I want my rogue to do this!”
DM: “Eh, a rogue wouldn’t do that.”
Me: “Hm, okay. Would a rogue do this other thing then?”
DM: “For sure!”
Me: “Then I want my rogue to do that!”

For me it would be...

Me: “I want my rogue to do this!”
DM: “Eh, a rogue wouldn’t do that.”
Me: “Bye! Here's your new NPC."

DMs overstepping their authority is cause for me to exit instantly. I wouldn't even finish out the session.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be clear: I'm referring to the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws outlined in the chapter covering personalities and backgrounds.

It's true that you're able to choose, but the choices made offer prescriptions on the way we might expect your character will or won't behave.

You're instructed to work with the Dungeon Master if you want to create an ideal, bond, or flaw not found on any of the lists--which is not unlike having to engage with the DM to hash out the consequences of a druid wearing metal armor.

Those are examples and I have never felt the need to use any of those. In fact, a lot of them I find pretty terrible and have no desire to use.

If you feel like I need to talk to a DM before deciding that my character's sister is his bond, or that he values the ideals of Buttling, then you are once again putting far too much power towards the DM to dictate my character. I have full control over what I write in those sections, what I mean by what I write, and how I RP that. The DM has no say in the matter what so ever and neither do the rules.

It's the game's vision for how the class should function, and it's not unreasonable for other players to have expectations that align with the game's vision, but I agree that we shouldn't be strong-arming others to bend to our will (which is the crux of the player agency discussion).

I'm not saying other players and DMs can't have expectations. I'm just saying that codifying those expectations into the rules, especially in this way that is so clearly a violation of player agency, should not be acceptable.

We've already discussed solutions to this. The only reason we are still discussing it is because of people trying to claim that just because I want to play a Druid writ large, that somehow I have entered into a contract that states I must play a druid in the way they expect.

 

[Faolyn]

Warlock.

And that part of a proficiency is what? I didn't recall any strangeness when I made one for one of my current games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And that part of a proficiency is what? I didn't recall any strangeness when I made one for one of my current games.

Blade pact makes you proficient with your pact weapon. Just that one individual weapon, not all weapons of that type.

 

[Maxperson]

Blade pact makes you proficient with your pact weapon. Just that one individual weapon, not all weapons of that type.

Can you show any instances(other than the very improbable druid) of armor being treated this way? I can only recall weapons being learned individually.

In any case, druids have full medium armor proficiency, so if they are proficient with non-metal chain, that automatically makes them proficient with metal chain. Nothing anywhere, even on page 45, indicates that they only have proficiency with hide armor.