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

[AtomicPope]

I treat it like any formal tradition: those who are full Druid are not proficient in other ways and therefore are not proficient in metal armors.

The same goes for their weaponry. Dwarves and Elves are both trained in other weapons (and possibly armors) and therefore they can use them. Wood Elf Druids use longbows and no one ever questions it. Why should we question a Dwarven Druid wearing metal armor?

If you think of it as formal training, and a way of life, then it makes more sense that there would be a little variety as different peoples have different needs. The basic Druid can use their magic to craft armor (shape wood, etc). Ergo, they can live in the woodlands and plains without ever deep mining the earth for armor. Most of us assume that even Dwarven Druids live in similar environments as regular Dwarves, and are steeped in Dwarven traditions as any other Dwarf would be.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

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.

Why must a fallen star be made of metal, again? Why not glowing crystal, stone, magically congealed light, magically hardened ice or something even more exotic?

 

[Maxperson]

Why must a fallen star be made of metal, again? Why not glowing crystal, stone, magically congealed light, magically hardened ice or something even more exotic?

In order to be made into armor. A rock big enough to make armor out of after it impacts the planet would do a lot of local damage. But it doesn't really matter. Druids can't make fallen stars to order. This one happened to be metal.

 

[Yaarel]

Why must a fallen star be made of metal, again? Why not glowing crystal, stone, magically congealed light, magically hardened ice or something even more exotic?

Hypothetically, a meteor could be made out of anything.

Meteoric iron is notable because of reallife. Before the Iron Age, iron weapons and tools did exist here and there during the Bronze Age. Certain towns knew how to refine it such as in N Turkey. And elsewhere iron appeared experimentally, every now and then. Often these unusually occuring specimens of iron came from naturally refined iron from a meteor.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

In order to be made into armor. A rock big enough to make armor out of after it impacts the planet would do a lot of local damage. But it doesn't really matter. Druids can't make fallen stars to order. This one happened to be metal.

You mean this big? You might consider looking up the relative densities of common stone types vs metal or metal ores - seeing as how it's mass not size (beyond the nitty-gritty drag components) that determine the amount of energy from falling impacts.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean this big? You might consider looking up the relative densities of common stone types vs metal or metal ores - seeing as how it's mass not size (beyond the nitty-gritty drag components) that determine the amount of energy from falling impacts.

It took bronze wires(metal) to make that suit.

 

[loverdrive]

My clerics don't wear metal armour either

On a serious note, when someone wants to play druid, we figure out exact rites and taboos and stuff, so my answer is: it depends.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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 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.




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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.

So AC 19 is what druids need to have? I don't know, perhaps you're right that they need better AC. Then again, you seem to be the only person in this thread that is approaching this from the angle that druids are underpowered. Most people's issues with the rule do not seem to be related to that, nor I've heard many (any) complaints about druid power level in general. So I am not super convinced.

And if you think that is the issue, why would you be OK with the compromise of just not giving them medium armour proficiency? Because you can overcome by being a dwarf or taking a feat? Because if this truly was an balance issue, I don't think that would be an acceptable solution at all.

Furthermore, If this was a balance issue, I definitely would seek options other than just making them more similar to clerics. If we need to buff their AC and give something other classes have, then unarmoured defence would be better, as classes that currently have it are very dissimilar to the druids. It would also allow druids to run around butt naked only covered in dirt and warpaint, so that sounds appropriate.

 

[Plaguescarred]

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

Warlock are only proficient with simple wearpons, but they can create a pact weapon out of thin air and be proficient with it while they wield it. Only when a singular non-simple weapon is wielded that the Warlock is proficient, not at all time, nor it is with other weapon of the same type.

Pact Weapon: You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it.

Otherwise Classes give proficiency to types of armor (light, medium, heavy) and shields and weapons or categories of weapons. Plurial imply its all of them, so having longswords or medium armor proficiency means being proficient with all longswords and medium armors.

Armor Proficiency: Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor
Weapon Proficiency: Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial.

 

[mrpopstar]

When I say "story to tell," I mean the kind of story that involves them effectively taking over your character and making them do only what they approve of. I don't know many gamers who are cool with that sort of stuff.

I've gamed with Dungeon Masters who pull your character around by the nose a little bit, but I've never dealt with or witnessed a DM wholesale possessing anyone's character.

That would be... awkward.

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.

Yeah, yikes. I'm def not one of those.

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.

The rules for personality and background show you how to play up quintessential fantasy tropes and be rewarded for doing so. I think they're great because they provide guidelines for the basic behaviors that describe a heroic character that feels true to the Dungeons & Dragons brand.

Of course you're not restricted to the characteristics outlined, and of course you shouldn't feel constrained by them, but they do exist for a reason, and as the Dungeon Master it's helpful to collaborate on anything that isn't pre-packaged in the Player's Handbook. Having an alignment, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw written in ink allows the DM to build adventures with your character in mind, and make suggestions whenever the game stalls around ethical quandaries.

For example, I have enough experience as a DM to know that I should anticipate a high stakes conversation among the players in situations where they've taken a hostage. It's helpful to be able to say "your alignment suggests we can count on you to do the right thing" or "your ideal suggests you believe this person should be treated with dignity and respect" when indecision strikes or infighting ensues.

That's not me taking control of anyone's character, that's me having a tool with which to stoke the fires of inspiration. In my experience, humble though it may be, that has been welcome at the table and leads to a faster-moving game.

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.

I understand. For myself, it's clearly the rule and it's also the rule that you can do whatever you want at your own table.

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.

Your dwarf belongs to the circle of stars and will not wear metal armor for contrived reasons specific to the D&D brand. It's really that simple, but you're free to collaborate with your DM on an approach that works for you. I think star metal sounds awesome!

Edit: Misspelled words.​