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

[Maxperson]

A rule that makes a reallife player uncomfortable because it mischaracterizes their identity, whether gender or ethnicity, is an evil.

There is no such rule in D&D.

 

[lingual]

This whole stupid thread would have been way better if they hadn't placed a random piece of fluff into the RULE section.

If they didn't want Druid to wear half-plates they should have just limited their proficiencies instead of this BS half-baked solution that is not written like a rule at all.

They sort of did limit their proficiency on page 45. I suppose they should have mentioned it again under the class description just to clarify. Even then, that's not a hard ban. Maybe they assumed we all knew the lore/rules from previous versions. At the least, some hard consequences (ie. No shape shift) or something.

 

[Maxperson]

They sort of did limit their proficiency on page 45. I suppose they should have mentioned it again under the class description just to clarify. Even then, that's not a hard ban. Maybe they assumed we all knew the lore/rules from previous versions. At the least, some hard consequences (ie. No shape shift) or something.

Page 45 is a synopsis of the rules, not rules. The rules are on page 65 where it does clarify, and there is no limitation to proficiency.

 

[lingual]

Likewise the mountain dwarf armor-wearing racial trait breaks the Druid class proficiencies.


There is just no room for a house rule that pretends a Druid neva eva eva wears metal.



And such an intolerant house rule is bad for D&D gaming.

Reallife D&D players need to be free from someone elses reallife opinions about how religions work.

Likewise, players need to be personally COMFORTABLE with the character concepts that they are playing. They need to be able to build their own character concepts that make sense to them, that they can identify with.



The house rule that unconditionally forbids metal armor under any circumstance is both ridiculous and an evil.

Can you tone it down on the evil talk. And equating metal armor bans on druids to real life societal problems is completely off base.

We are not going to 3K if this things goes off the rails and we start calling DMs bad/evil for interpreting a rule a certain way - especially if a huge chunk of players (50 percent ? maybe more ? but definitely a big chunk) read it the same way.

Even the DnD game designers aren't as dogmatic about it.

I'd make a poll thread about it but it would just devolve into arguments. Maybe once this thread gets locked?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can you tone it down on the evil talk. And equating metal armor bans on druids to real life societal problems is completely off base.

I'd make a poll thread about it but it would just devolve into arguments. Maybe once this thread gets locked?

If you do, make it clear whether you're asking what people think the rule does or how they would actually run it. As those are often different things.

 

[lingual]

The recent discussions about minority ethnic groups needing to feel comfortable when playing D&D and having control over their own player character concepts, includes ethnic groups with minority religions. Players must be able to decide for themselves which religious tropes make sense to them or not.

Every player needs to feel comfortable.

As a minority (even though I don't speak for all minorities obviously), I will unequivocally state that I am NOT offended in anyway if your druid wears metal armor, disdains the use of metal armor, you allow druids to wear metal armor, you don't allow it, or if you throw the meta armor away and don't recycle it.

 

[Maxperson]

As a minority (even though I don't speak for all minorities obviously), I will unequivocally state that I am NOT offended in anyway if your druid wears metal armor, disdains the use of metal armor, you allow druids to wear metal armor, you don't allow it, or if you throw the meta armor away and don't recycle it.

Same.

 

[Oofta]

Likewise the mountain dwarf armor-wearing racial trait breaks the Druid class proficiencies.


There is just no room for a house rule that pretends a Druid neva eva eva wears metal.



And such an intolerant house rule is bad for D&D gaming.

Reallife D&D players need to be free from someone elses reallife opinions about how religions work.

Likewise, players need to be personally COMFORTABLE with the character concepts that they are playing. They need to be able to build their own character concepts that make sense to them, that they can identify with.



The house rule that unconditionally forbids metal armor under any circumstance is both ridiculous and an evil.

So following the rules of the game and expecting players to do the same (or face consequences as determined by the DM) is evil?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Rules don't say that. Half plate is metal armour and rules say druids don't wear that.


And if they didn't mean half plate to be metal armour, they wouldn't have written it is metal.

Seriously, just stop. You think they just put rules that the don't intend to do anything in the game, I don't.

The rules absolutely do not say that. The basic description of what half-plate is assumes metal, but it also does not assume a helmet or anything else.

For example, Faulds are typically worn with breastplates, but the breastplate itself doesn't describe them. If I have a character wearing a breastplate and faulds... are they not wearing breastplate? Do the "rules" mean that if the leather wasn't boiled in oil it can't be used for leather armor?

None of that section is the "rules". Acting like it is is untenable. It would be the same as saying that you can't buy fishing tackle that has: a wooden rod, gut line, corkwood bobbers, bone hooks, stone sinkers, velvet lures and narrow netting, Because "THE RULES" state that is contains: a wooden rod, silk line, corkwood bobbers, steel hooks, lead sinkers, velvet lures and narrow netting.

No, that isn't rules, that is just a general description of what the items are. The rules for half-plate do not require them to be metal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So following the rules of the game and expecting players to do the same (or face consequences as determined by the DM) is evil?

No, he was talking about the rule itself and how it is written to remove agency. Not anything else you are trying to jump onto.