D&D 5E (2014) Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[Faolyn]

I don't understand why someone can't be proficient with hide armor, but not half plate.

There would be nothing wrong with that... if the druid entry were written as "proficiencies: light armor, hide armor." But it's not.

 

[Faolyn]

But animals might lack knowledge about metal armors.

Clearly we need to bring back the aurumvorax.

(Or else, druids need to start communing with scaly-foot snails.)

 

[Yaarel]

Clearly we need to bring back the aurumvorax.

(Or else, druids need to start communing with scaly-foot snails.)

That scaly-foot sea snail is amazing!

On the topic of flavor and design.

I like the beastly Druid with furs and animal materials. I want "plot protection" mechanics for this concept.

At the same time, I want other kinds of Druid concepts too. A metal Druid and a lightning Druid can easily cherish metal armors. And perhaps a scaly-foot Druid too.

 

[Charlaquin]

Class features dont need to say if they are magical or not. They just do whatever it says they do.

Actually they do, because it matters for the purpose of things like antimagic field. According to Sage Advice, something is considered magical if:

• • It’s a magic item
  • It’s a spell, or it lets you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description
  • It’s a spell attack
  • It’s fueled by the use of spell slots
  • Its description says it’s magical

otherwise, it’s not magical.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So why not compare druids to monks and rogues? Why you have to compare it to those who are the best? Do druids need to be best at everything? That doesn't sound balanced...

Rangers are the best AC?

I'm not counting rogues or monks because they are skirmishers. They are built with multiple ways to get in and out of the frontline, and to have multiple ways to increase their surviablility in combat. Like a bonus action dodge, or a reaction half damage. Or evasion.

Druids have exactly zero abilities like this, and druids don't fight in a skirmish capacity. So, why would I compare skirmishers to a frontline build?

On par with what? That's the problem. Your think that you're entitled to have the same AC than the classes wit the best AC. This is not necessarily the case. Instead of thinking druids as default medium armour wearers that have unfairly been denied their medium armour AC think them as light armour wearers that have an awesome extra option to wear some magical medium armours. (And hide, but no one cares about that.)

On par with other melee frontliners?

Do you honestly think that 19 AC is the best AC in the game? Because that is a druid with a 14 dex, half-plate and a shield. A fighter or paladin can easily and trivially get 21 AC, before magic, before buffs, before any planning for a better AC. So, no, I'm not "entitled" and I'm not asking to have the same AC as the best of the best. Heck, I'm not even asking to be better than the wizard. A bladesinger wizard at level 2 (when they become a bladesinger) can pull off having an AC of 18. Put a few ASIs in them and that can end up as high as 23 before the use of the shield spell. Forge Clerics can have an AC of 22 by level 6, with no magical gear or buffs other than their class features.

And, just to reiterate. 19 is less than 21, 22, and 23. So, again, I'm not asking for the best AC in the game. I'm asking for a middle of the road AC that is at least decent for a front-line character.

So only the best possible magic items are acceptable? Yeah, sorry I don't see things that way.

You asked why I don't like Dragonscale, I told you. It is barely a fancy set of basic magic armor. It is disappointing for an iconic set of armor made from one of the most powerful creatures in the game. It would be like if you took the Ruby Rod and it was just a +1 damage and gave you back a single spell slot.

Oh right. But you seemed to have an issue with them having better AC than the druids. So that would fix that!

It would also fix it to remove all armor from the game! But, maybe instead of nerfing people so you can force druids to follow your aesthetic, you just loosen the grip a little and recognize that not everyone shares your taste in how a druid "should" be.

Everyone didn't buy medium armour from the shop. Rogues didn't, wizards didn't!

Though could have. It is only a single feat for Rogues to get Moderately Armored. Or maybe they are a dwarven wizard and can wear medium armor. Also, seven or eight of the classes can easily wear medium armor, so the vast majority of characters.

Rules often deal with mechanics...

And you shouldn't make a character's religious belief into rules.

This is more like wanting to player decide whether monks can use their martial arts in armour or not.

No, it isn't. Because Druids have no mechanics that stop working if they wear armor. Also, a Monk could decide to wear armor, they lose a lot of abilities, but they could make that choice.

A druid cannot make the choice, the choice is made for them.

So make it a level one spell.

I considered that. I wasn't sure about the impact. I haven't exactly had a lot of time to test this out and see if it works or not.

Ultimately I don't think that a class based game has reason to exist if classes are homogenised and can just be anything. But yeah, dropping the medium armour proficiency would be a decentish compromise, as it would still keep druid as default non-metal wearer. It is a very boring option though, and I would definitely prefer if they instead had some sort of thematic limitation on metal wearing like monks have with all armour and certain weapons.

And I don't think I want a game where the classes are so tightly restricted that I have little freedom to reskin them.

It is an interesting take, though I have to say that the AC scaling based on the spell slot level seems rather odd. Is there any other defensive or buff spells that work like that?

Ac spells? No. Buff spells, a few like Armor of Agathys and Aid. But I also think more spells should have better effects at higher levels. Upcasting is generally not better than casting a spell of the higher levels, so I don't see a problem with it generally.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand why someone can't be proficient with hide armor, but not half plate.

They can be, and because they can, the fact that the druid entry doesn’t just say “light armor and hide armor” is pretty strong evidence that the intent was for the restriction to be something other than lack of proficiency.

Also, let's not conflate this druid armor thing with "player agency" or "railroading" or "players can do anything they want". If you are arguing in good faith, we all know there is enough confusion to the rule that a table that disallows it is perfectly fine (and vice versa).

I don’t think anyone is claiming that it isn’t perfectly fine to allow it or to disallow it. If there’s one thing we all agree on, it’s that however you want to rule it at your own table is perfectly fine. The disagreement we’re having is about what the rule actually says, what it means and whether or not it’s constructed in a way that makes sense as a rule and/or steps on players’ agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Class features dont need to say if they are magical or not. They just do whatever it says they do.

This is completely wrong. If an ability is magical, it says so. If it's not, it doesn't say it's magical. They are only what they say they are unless you make a house rule. They aren't just sitting around for you to change at your whim.

A Monk adds Wisdom to Armor Class, is that magical or not?

No it's not. Because it doesn't say that it is.

A Druid is proficient with nonmetal armors, is that magical or not?

No. Because it doesn't say that it is.

And the question is moot, because magic can cause effects that are nonmagical.

Irrelevant. If it doesn't say that it is magical, it isn't.

I can cast a Create Water spell, and the water is nonmagical − it wont vanish in an antimagic zone.

Cool story. It was still due to a magic spell per RAW. You don't get to put a bucket into a well and then call it magical, which is what you are trying to claim with abilities here.

The Druid is only proficient with nonmetal armors.

Only by your house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand why someone can't be proficient with hide armor, but not half plate.

I suppose someone could, but druids don't say "Proficient with hide." They say, "Proficient with medium armor," which includes all medium armors of all materials.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually they do, because it matters for the purpose of things like antimagic field. According to Sage Advice, something is considered magical if:

• • It’s a magic item
  • It’s a spell, or it lets you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description
  • It’s a spell attack
  • It’s fueled by the use of spell slots
  • Its description says it’s magical

otherwise, it’s not magical.

Yes.

Also, there seems to be things that are magical in origin, but that are nonmagical now.

When trying to get a sense of these (recent) considerations about what is or isnt magic, I found dragonbreath to be illustrative.

Presumably, the dragon "evolved" into a firebreather, by means of magic, whether shapeshifting or elemental, or whatever. But now, both its ability to produce fire and the fire itself is effectively nonmagic. Probably the same goes for dragon flight. It is possible to use reallife science (biology, aerodynamics, etcetera) to explain why a gigantic dragon can fly (like bladders with buoyant gas). But D&D can handwaive it, and say, sure it came from magic, but is effectively nonmagical in itself. A dragon can continue to firebreathe and fly while in antimagic.

If I recall correctly some undead frightening effects, seem quasimagic, but are effectively nonmagical.

There are other blurry lines. The psionic power source can cast spells. The ability of a mind to do these things is natural and innate, but the spells that manifest are magical.

Anyway, I am still trying to get a feel for what is and isnt magic.

In the case of the Druid, the class will continue remain proficient with nonmetal armor, no matter where this knowledge came from.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Partially it is more of a reaction to the people on these forums than anything else. At least for me.

There are people here online who would take that "work with your DM" to mean that they as the DM have some sort of oversight or veto over my characters personality. That I need to check with them before I even start planning the character out.

Personally, I think the "work with your DM" was a signpost to less experienced players to go to a more experienced player to seek advice on how to go about this, but in practice, it isn't necessary. I've never had a player who had a hard time coming up with personalities, flaws, bonds, ect.

More practically, I am obviously going to tell the DM about my bonds, and I am clearly going to check with some of the party about things like "Hey, my character is a bit of a coward, we think we can work with this?" But that is more a collaborative effort, like not making an elf-hating dwarf when I know there is an elf in the party, without checking that it is cool with them.

But again, the DM need not apply to my character creation when it comes to my personality and beliefs. I don't need their help and I definitely not giving them permission to try and take creative control of my character. If there is a serious issue, we can talk it out, like mature adults, but this is my character, not their game piece that they are going to shape to match their story.

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

No, it is 100% about their expectations. Crimson Longius has stated multiple times that if the rule was changed then every Druid would wear metal, and they don't like that because they like the traditional aesthetic of druids not wearing metal.

The ruleset isn't even objective, it is clearly biased towards this older model of Druidism that was conceived for Greyhawk back in 1e and has no room for more comprehensive takes on the concept.

Again, I find it telling that no one has said why my Dwarven Star Druid would find it unacceptable to wear armor they made from a fallen star, using it to gird themselves against the evils of the world they must face. It is a perfectly coherent concept, a druid who worships stars, wearing what is the closet thing to a star itself from their perspective. But, that isn't allowed, because the rules say that I must reject that metal as unnatural. Well, unless I make it into literally anything except armor or a shield. Then it is perfectly fine.