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

[mrpopstar]

If you see a catholic priest with a censer chanting in Latin, it is because he is venerating and worshiping God.

Catholics make a meaningful distinction: adoration for God, veneration for saints. #funfacts

 

[J.Quondam]

And it should ONLY be the player of the PC who determines what circumstances are valid for his PC.

Yes, indeed. As long as the GM isn't imposing their notions or assumptions of how a taboo (or addiction or phobia or whatever) should or can be handled onto their players, it's all good.
For me at least, i think the hard part for the GM is just maintaining that awareness while also running the game's mechanics and fiction.
All one can do is try in earnest, and hope the other players are equally sincere.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because there is actual rule that binds them. This is the giant issue here. You get hung up on trivial difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' In practice it doesn't matter most of the time. Mechanically they don't do that. You're unable to parse the actual outcome of mechanics, which is weird, because it is pretty simple.

The difference between "can not" and "will not" is not trivial. And again, let's talk about the mechanical implications. Let us say that I give a Druid a suit a bone armor that is half-plate, something that designers like Crawford, Mearls, and others know has been done for decades. Can they wear it? Yes, because the designers specifically left them that ability.

So why on earth would they balance the class around not having access to something they knew they would be given access to, and that they specifically let them have access to? Because in bounded accuracy +3 AC wasn't important? Sorry, that isn't true. That is a fairly significant amount of AC difference. Enough to be accounted for. Because they somehow expected it all should be considered magical gear and not count? Why? Druids still have access to magical bone armor too.

These guys have played DnD for decades, are you really trying to convince me that they never considered the balance implications of druids doing what they have done for that entire time?

If there was a rule that would say fighters will only use daggers, I would absolutely think that! But there isn't. (Good example, thank you.)

But my fighter chooses to use only daggers, so isn't that the exact same as a druid choosing to only wear light armor? And if the druid is balanced around their choice, why isn't the fighter balanced around their choice?

I don't think this is likely at all. It would be very stupid to do this. They should be balanced around what is actually allowed, and as Crawford in his explanation lists what it is that they actually use, so he certainly understands it.

You are right. And Half-plate is allowed. They can actually use it. They just "won't" (or are forced to never even consider) using metal half-plate. But every single designer for 5e was perfectly aware that druids have for decades used alternative armor materials. So, why do you think that they just... ignored the possibility that people would do what they have always done, especially since they left open the rules to allow for that exact thing?

It is like saying "Yes, I know that door is there. I know that people have used that door for decades. I know that we left that door unlocked and sign on it saying it was available for use... but I never expected anyone to actually walk through it" Of course they did. There is literally no other possible thing they could have expected.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The difference between "can not" and "will not" is not trivial. And again, let's talk about the mechanical implications. Let us say that I give a Druid a suit a bone armor that is half-plate, something that designers like Crawford, Mearls, and others know has been done for decades. Can they wear it? Yes, because the designers specifically left them that ability.

So why on earth would they balance the class around not having access to something they knew they would be given access to, and that they specifically let them have access to? Because in bounded accuracy +3 AC wasn't important? Sorry, that isn't true. That is a fairly significant amount of AC difference. Enough to be accounted for. Because they somehow expected it all should be considered magical gear and not count? Why? Druids still have access to magical bone armor too.

These guys have played DnD for decades, are you really trying to convince me that they never considered the balance implications of druids doing what they have done for that entire time?

Why wouldn't they design the game around your personal houserules. That sure is a mystery...

But my fighter chooses to use only daggers, so isn't that the exact same as a druid choosing to only wear light armor? And if the druid is balanced around their choice, why isn't the fighter balanced around their choice?

Because the druids have a rule to enforce such a choice and the fighters don't. Like how on Earth is this even a question.

You are right. And Half-plate is allowed. They can actually use it. They just "won't" (or are forced to never even consider) using metal half-plate. But every single designer for 5e was perfectly aware that druids have for decades used alternative armor materials. So, why do you think that they just... ignored the possibility that people would do what they have always done, especially since they left open the rules to allow for that exact thing?

It is like saying "Yes, I know that door is there. I know that people have used that door for decades. I know that we left that door unlocked and sign on it saying it was available for use... but I never expected anyone to actually walk through it" Of course they did. There is literally no other possible thing they could have expected.

Yeah, this is just getting more bizarre. Crawford listed the armours he expected the druids to wear, and those are the ones the rules allow them to wear. That's what the class is designed around, not your houserules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It literally says straight out in the PHB that that's exactly how they get their powers, kid. As I mentioned in the post you quoted.

PHB, p64 under heading Power of Nature, 1st paragraph:
"Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either through the force of nature itself [a deific power] or from a nature deity."

Your mistake here is assuming that "the force of nature itself" means "deity" it doesn't.

The same consequence a Paladin suffers for breaking their oath, a Warlock does for failing to live up to the terms of their pact, a Cleric for making a serious blasphemy or even turning away entirely from their deity or deific force - whatever the DM decides it is. The default presumption is not "there are no consequences". Pretty sure this has come up at least 80 times in this thread.

But "there are no consequences" is a legitimate answer. If a Devotion Paladin lies to protect children hiding in the closet from being killed, he may feel shame that he didn't live up to the highest ideals of his order, but his shame being weighed against the lives of two children... well, let's just say that I would have a major problem with any force that said the paladin should lose their abilities for not "doing the right thing"

A Warlock "failing to live up to their pact" is very loose language. And Warlocks defying their patrons and their pacts is a pretty old tale. And sometimes, a lot of times, they don't lose their powers.

Clerics turning against their gods? I actually wish I could remember the name of the novel, but it was an official Forgotten Realms novel. Featured a theif/cleric. Guy was chosen to be a Cleric by Mask. Did he worship Mask? No. Did he like Mask? No. Did he defy Mask at every turn? Yes. Did it matter one tiny little bit? Nope!

The idea of a cleric being forced to serve a god because the God says so is another concept that has a lot of traction. Enough that I can't even find the novel I'm thinking of.

So, sure, "The DM decides" but can you give me a reason that the DM should decide anything happens? I mean, most Fiend Warlocks are expecting to betray their patrons and still retain their powers, which you say is the same sort of taboo that wearing metal would be for a druid... so why should the druid expect anything to happen to them if they did? If I can play a Cleric who curses his Diety's name.... why can't I play a Druid who wears metal and uses a metal shield?

The magic of the oldest druidic sect in Eberron, the Gatekeepers (as taught by VVaraak), stemmed from bonds between the three progenitor dragons. Which, sorry to burst your bubble, are divine beings. It's implied that some other sects might derive their abilities from things like fey (e.g Greensingers), which would be something like animism, but never directly stated to my knowledge. There's most definitely no implication that the Metal Armor prohibition doesn't exist there.

That's weird. Looking over my notes on Eberron, specifically the stuff I took from Keith Baker's blog, there is no indication that Syberis, Eberron and Khyber were real and not just a metaphor for the power above the planet, the planet and the dangers lurking below the surface of the planet.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but those are places, not divine beings. And, even if they were, since Eberron is the planet itself, would you like to try and explain why metal (the material of Ebberron) is rejected by... Eberron? Is a self-hatred thing? Seems really weird that if this divine being exists (which again, we literally have no proof of, on purpose by the designer of the place) that they are okay with fire, water, wood, animal skins, air, stone, dirt, bone... but not metal?

I have no access to Ravnica-related campaign materials and thus no way to verify whether your claim is true. The official MTG website (MTG being the progenitor of Ravnica) has some things to say on the matter, however. Per the "Druids, Trees, and Truth" publication: "The druid's power—like all true power—comes from the land. He recognizes that, to gain access the fundamental forces of the world, the first step is the subordination of the self to the will of nature." That describes worship / spiritual veneration. Making "Nature" a deific force if not technically a god. You're free to write or rewrite WHATEVER you choose in your homebrew setting, of course.

Cool, cool, so "the will of nature" could be completely mindless and just acting to grow and thrive and survive. I mean, I'm sure the "will of nature" in a forest would be that a mudslide that destroys the forest is bad, but that doesn't stop the rain from weakening a mountainside and causing that mudslide anyways.

"The Will of Nature" isn't a god, it isn't a single unified force. That just doesn't make sense in the context of the situation.

So, again, your assertion that all druids draw their power from some "deity" in some manner is just wrong.

So much nothing that the prohibition against metal armor he instituted in 1e persisted almost unchanged through all the succeeding editions he wasn't involved with until 4e at least (about which I don't know because I couldn't stand 4e); with the slight evolution from "can't wear metal armor" to "loses all magical abilities for 24 hours if they put on metal armor". And even in 5e the prohibition remains - but again, as with all conduct violations in 5e, the consequences are left up to the DM.

Just because people kept the name "rogue" doesn't mean that they are identical in 5e to 2e. Gygax's opinion on what he would or would not allow have nothing to do with 5e. In 1e, there was a good balance reason for the restriction, because 1e was designed differently.

There is no balance to the current restriction, and it makes no sense. Metal is a part of nature. If making it hot and bending it makes it unacceptable, then lava would be unacceptable. Or Ice sculptures for that matter. Shaping a tree would be unacceptable.

The specific nature of religious practice doesn't actually matter. A taboo or prohibition exists within a religious context because it is presumed according to that tradition to offend some spirit or deific figure; or to demonstrate some symbolic loyalty; or because violating the taboo is presumed to have some deleterious effect on one's own spiritual nature (be it a soul or karma). In a world where there are direct, tangible, magical benefits received from specific religious practice (i.e. druidic empowerment) - then one is going to have direct, tangible, magical consequences for violating the tenets of that practice. Even if just the (temporary) loss of the aforementioned benefits.

So why does nature hate nature enough to remove the benefits and powers they have granted by using a natural material?

 

[Maxperson]

Why wouldn't they design the game around your personal houserules. That sure is a mystery...

They didn't They designed it around the rules, which include half plate.

Because the druids have a rule to enforce such a choice and the fighters don't. Like how on Earth is this even a question.

There is literally nothing in any book to "enforce" the choice. It would require some sort of mechanic to do that.

Yeah, this is just getting more bizarre. Crawford listed the armours he expected the druids to wear, and those are the ones the rules allow them to wear. That's what the class is designed around, not your houserules.

I've already shown you the math. It's literally impossible for druids not to be balanced for half plate. 19=19. And the rules allow druids to wear metal half plate. The rule is that medium armor proficiency gives proficiency with all armors in that category. Druids lacking any sort of qualifier to remove proficiency are allowed by RAW to wear metal half plate. It's only the taboo of "will not wear metal armor," which is a personal in-fiction druid choice that "prevents" them. Nothing actually enforces that choice, though, so it can be broken if the druid feels that it's important enough.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, but... A taboo is supposed to be difficult to ignore*. If it's a thing that isn't hard to do, or isn't important to abide -- if it isn't causing great doubt, or risking shunning by the group, or evoking disgust or fear or shame -- it's not really a taboo.

While someone who (for example) won't eat meat for religious reasons might (not will, but might) violate that stricture in order to stave off starvation, that doesn't mean they'd do it willingly or without disgust. Afterward they may well feel intense guilt or shame, and the need to atone or confess or cleanse as appropriate for their faith. Likewise, if this druid restriction on metal is truly a taboo, then the expectation is that there ought to be some sort of serious struggle associated with violating it. It shouldn't be a casual thing in the game if it's a genuine taboo.

But how that plays out at the table will obviously vary a lot from player to player-- which is why I think some posters here are wary of addressing it all in the game. Why? Because for people (like me) who don't have tough religious limits in their lives, it's easy to shrug it off without really grasping the seriousness of such a inner conflict; so I run a real risk of roleplaying that to the point of insensitive disregard. And for someone who does hold to some sort of taboo or strong religious restriction, they may simply not want to deal with that in a game they play for fun.

So I think that's a fair ask, just like any other "red line" is. If a player doesn't want the theme of taboo or religious inner-conflict in a game-- even in a general sense-- I'd work to accommodate that. I mean it's easy enough to clarify it before the players join the game and avoid the issue altogether, right?


* It really doesn't help that Sage Advice seems to misuse the word "taboo" here.
** And none of this, of course, excuses the horrible, no-good, burn-it-with fire and just-fix-it-already RAW on druid armor, however.

I 100%, no, I 100,000% agree with this. But here is the thing.

If a player doesn't care about the Druid metal taboo... then they aren't going to care. No matter how many rules and restrictions you put on them, they aren't going to care. At best, you just annoy them.

So, why not make it a choice? Why not limit this to a choice made by specific druidic orders? There is a reason the term "orthodox" exists. Different people emphasize their beliefs in different manners. If your druid wants to emphasize the importance of not using metal to defend yourself, that's fine. If your druid wants to emphasize a disgust for metal in general really work to remove all of it from their life, that's fine too.

But it should also be fine that my druid cares more for other aspects, and doesn't consider the metal defense issue to be as important. My druid should have that choice. And if that means that a bunch of other druids turn their noses up at them... sure, whatever. But I don't agree with removing that choice from all druids, across all time and space. Not when it is so easy to see how this taboo wouldn't apply to many, many different druids.

 

[mrpopstar]

Nature is an impersonal force that grants power to mortals attuned to it. Druids are devoted to this force, revere it, and gain their spell ability from it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Catholics make a meaningful distinction: adoration for God, veneration for saints. #funfacts

I knew I was going to get it wrong however I did it. Thanks.

And that is an important point... different words applying differently in different contexts.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why wouldn't they design the game around your personal houserules. That sure is a mystery...

Because it isn't my personal houserule. Mystery solved.

Because the druids have a rule to enforce such a choice and the fighters don't. Like how on Earth is this even a question.

So, why is there a rule forcing and enforcing a Druid to make a personal choice? Why are rules that enforce personaly religious choices even rules?

Yeah, this is just getting more bizarre. Crawford listed the armours he expected the druids to wear, and those are the ones the rules allow them to wear. That's what the class is designed around, not your houserules.

Nope. He was talking about "typically". And frankly, Crawford isn't an idiot. He knows full and well what happened in 3.X and 4e. He knows that druids would be given armors made out of alternative materials. They designed the class to explicitly allow that to happen, why wouldn't they include that in the balance?