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

[Faolyn]

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

And that's a specifically magical effect which actually makes a lot of sense in the context of the class and pact. You are creating a special magic weapon. You're not picking up a random weapon and gaining an ability with it; you are either creating a weapon out of thin air or magically transmuting an existing weapon into a pact weapon. It's actually no different than something like elven chain, where you can wear it with no penalty even if you aren't proficient in Medium armor.

But there's nothing in the writeup for druids that says that they are magically granted proficiency in anything, or magically barred from using their proficiency based on metal. It's just a "will not" note.

Edit: It should also be noted that this is one specific pact for the class. There's nothing that forces you to take that pact. However, all druids, no matter their archetype, no matter their origins, no matter their philosophy, are forced to abide by "will not wear metal armor."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because I dont think that is what the rules intend.

I think the rules intend for a Druid to wear scale armor made out of dragonskin, or plate armor made out of tortoise.

The rules clearly say the Druid is proficient with any type of medium armor, as long as it is nonmetal.


But this proficiency is qualified: only under special circumstances, does it apply.


For a Warlock, a pact-blade longsword isnt any other longsword. It is a special, partial, proficiency, and it relates to the magical themes of the class.

So, the Warlock demonstrates, "proficiency with one is automatically proficiency with the other", to be a false claim.

It can − and does happen − that a proficiency is special, and applies only to a specific circumstance, and fails to apply to anything else of the same type.

In the case of Druid, the nonmetal material explicitly affects usage.

I don't think that this was intended thanks to Crawford's "clarification" but I think your interpretation is coherent.

 

[Yaarel]

So magic =/= unmagical. Show me a normal proficiency that works this way.

No it doesn't. It demonstrates that specific magic beats general proficiency and that's it. What's more, it doesn't grant actual proficiency. The magic just makes the warlock proficient while using the blade. The warlock is not proficient with the pact weapon when not using it.

Do you have an example that actually applies to the druid's case?

The problem in the first place is, the Druid class description explains nothing.

I can easily suggest that Druid gains proficiency with animal armors magically. Then offer the Warlock as a similar example of gaining proficiency with weapons magically.

But the Druid class description says nothing about why.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that this was intended thanks to Crawford's "clarification" but I think your interpretation is coherent.

You think that chain does not equal chain is coherent? His explanation means that almost nobody is proficient with adamantine or mithril armors at first level. There's no way they got to practice with them and being a different material than steel, they would not be proficient. Sucks to have to use two feats just to be proficient with adamantine plate and mithril chain.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem in the first place is, the Druid class description explains nothing.

It doesn't need to. It gives medium armor proficiency. Period. "Will not use metal armor" will never equal "Cannot use metal armor." or even "Is not proficient with metal armor." no matter how much you want it to.

I can easily suggest that Druid gains proficiency with animal armors magically.

Sure. You can homebrew that. RAW doesn't need such a suggestion. They have proficiency with all medium armors per pages 65 and 164.

Then offer the Warlock as a similar example of gaining proficiency with weapons magically.

They gain no such proficiency. They only use their weapon magically as if proficient.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You think that chain does not equal chain is coherent? His explanation means that almost nobody is proficient with adamantine or mithril armors at first level. There's no way they got to practice with them and being a different material than steel, they would not be proficient. Sucks to have to use two feats just to be proficient with adamantine plate and mithril chain.

It doesn't mean that at all. If your proficiency comes without conditionals, then it is all armours of that category.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think that this was intended thanks to Crawford's "clarification" but I think your interpretation is coherent.

When I played a Druid in a 1e campaign (one of my favorite characters), I used special armors made of nonmetal. It was only after specializing in earth magic in the Underdark for so many levels, and spell-researching new earth spells - that other players started suggesting that I should probably wear metal armor for thematic flavor. The DM agreed with them, and convinced me. And I think drow adamantine chain is awesome, so I wore that. But even then, it was a magic item, a special suit of metal armor, and not all metal chain generally. The fact that it was adamantine metal was important to the earth magic of the character concept. The character is a very high level (by 1e standards), and when running out of Druid levels, switched to "Hierophant" which is even more elemental! The character is still alive, and I could translate him into a 5e version.



So when Crawford mentions the design decision for the 5e Druid to wear nonmetal scale, and so on, that sounds true to me, from my experience with 1e.

It is a coherent interpretation that the 5e Druid is proficient with nonmetal medium armor, but not other specimens of medium armor.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

Not how I would expect a 50yo to behave as a guest in someone else's home or place of business, especially while playing a damn game, but if that has proven to be a winning formula for you then who am I to judge?

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.

Ok.

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.

Guys, what is this obsession with Dungeon Masters and interpersonal power dynamics? Honestly, explain it to me.

I can't imagine a gaming trauma so severe that it warrants this level of histrionics, which essentially boils down to "you're not the boss of me!"

I'm not aiding and abetting tyrannical DM dictators by referencing something that's clearly spelled out in the rules: "If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."

I literally don't know how to react when this upsets people. If I could hug it out of you, I would.

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.

It isn't about other people and their expectations, it's about an objective ruleset and it's stipulations.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't mean that at all. If your proficiency comes without conditionals, then it is all armours of that category.

It's not possible to learn how to use plate without knowing how to use all plate. The one exception is the pact blade which magically confers the ability to use it and it alone(so not true proficiency). It's utter nonsense to believe that plate =/= plate, because materials and at the same time plate = plate, despite different materials. There's no such magical reason behind either the fighter or the druid to allow such a thing.

 

[Faolyn]

It doesn't mean that at all. If your proficiency comes without conditionals, then it is all armours of that category.

And the druid clearly says "will not wear", not "isn't proficient in".