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

[Oofta]

...
That would certainly be more entertaining for the BBEGs.

I view it much like the self destruct they used now and then on Star Trek. I mean, just imagine the scene with Bob's PC the druid:

DM: Okay, the entire rest of the party is down, the Balrog and his minions surround you. Bob, what do you do?​

Bob: I'm pretty much tapped out of spells. Dang, sorry guys, it looks like I'm out of options. I look defiantly at the Balrog and shake my head as I proclaim "I didn't want to do this, but you leave me no choice" as I pull a metal buckler out of my backpack.​

Rest of the group: Don't do it, Bob, there has to be another way!​

DM: Okay, guys you're all dead or unconscious. No comments from the peanut gallery. The Balrog steps back in fear "You wouldn't dare!"​

Bob: "Step away now, or Yanthar's Castle will be remembered as Yanthar's Crater!"​

DM: The Balrog, eyes wide in terror "No ... don't do it ... we'll leave right away!"​

Bob: giving his best evil grin I reply "Not before you give in to my other demands" with an evil chuckle as the bracer edges ever more closely to his wrist.​

 

[Maxperson]

It can be inappropriate.

For example. The rules say that the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. I dont care. Different classes and archetypes offer different armor proficiencies. If I have a character concept that wants to wear such armor, then my character can do it by various means. Including a feat.

However, if there were a nonsensical houserule that made my character concept impossible, because the houserule says, my character would never choose to be such a concept. That starts getting weird and intrusive. And uncomfortable.

When this nonsensical houserule that harms player agency is because of someone elses opinion about how religions work, then the houserule starts crossing the line.

Not into evil it doesn't. It might be inappropriate, but it's not going to be anywhere near "profoundly immoral or wicked."

 

[Undrave]

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.

Like I said, AMATEUR HOUR. You can't expect someone to have read all four previous editions to just understand.

From what I remember, AD&D (1e and 2e, never player with older rulesets) were full of "aren't allowed to do X" and "cannot do X because they refuse to do it" for mechanical reasons rationalised as fluff. Even if "will not" wasn't use specifically (I'd have to delve into it to verify), it comes to the same: character cannot do X because that's not how they do it, period. Re: druid and specific weapons list and metal armor taboo, cleric prohibited from using slashing/piercing weapons because they don't want to shed blood, paladins and their code, rangers who won't store treasure they cannot carry with them etc.

In other systems, d6 Star Wars's Wookies having claws to climb but never using them in combat comes to mind, and I'm sure I could find many other instances.

The difference is that in most of these case, there is a consequence for failing to comply. You're a ranger and commit an evil act? Welcome to fighterhood for the rest of your career! You're a cleric and used a sword for legitimate defense? Ask your DM because it doesn't say otherwise. You're a Wookie and used your claws? You're... dishonored, I guess

So 30 years then. Still a long time in term of game design evolution.

Or maybe, just maybe, it was put into the rule section because it was intended to be a rule? Which Crawford affirmed in Sage Advice? Which like any rule can be ignored?

I dunno, just kind of spit-balling here.

There's about a dozen different way they could have worded the limitation to make it a PROPER rule. But for some reason they decided that this Fluff verbiage was the best way to word it?!

 

[Oofta]

It can be inappropriate.

For example. The rules say that the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. I dont care. Different classes and archetypes offer different armor proficiencies. If I have a character concept that wants to wear such armor, then my character can do it by various means. Including a feat.

However, if there were a nonsensical houserule that made my character concept impossible, because the houserule says, my character would never choose to be such a concept. That starts getting weird and intrusive. And uncomfortable.

When this nonsensical houserule that harms player agency is because of someone elses opinion about how religions work, then the houserule starts crossing the line.

Then you should have come up with a different character concept that works within the rules after verifying with the DM. If I have a character concept of playing Mighty Mouse, I recognize it's just not possible and I move on. The game doesn't, by default, support every possible concept.

Enforcing the rules of the game, as long as it's clear up front what the consequences will be, does not make the DM evil. Even if it is a house rule.

 

[Oofta]

...
There's about a dozen different way they could have worded the limitation to make it a PROPER rule. But for some reason they decided that this Fluff verbiage was the best way to word it?!

I don't view it as fluff verbiage because it shows up in the most logical place you would put the rule.

 

[mrpopstar]

Like I said, AMATEUR HOUR. You can't expect someone to have read all four previous editions to just understand.

There's nothing really to understand though as someone completely new to Dungeons & Dragons picking up the Player's Handbook for the first time. It's as simple as "Druids will not wear metal armor." If you're just learning how to play D&D, it's an obvious restriction that I can't imagine very many respond to the way we do.

 

[Maxperson]

I view it much like the self destruct they used now and then on Star Trek. I mean, just imagine the scene with Bob's PC the druid:

DM: Okay, the entire rest of the party is down, the Balrog and his minions surround you. Bob, what do you do?​

Bob: I'm pretty much tapped out of spells. Dang, sorry guys, it looks like I'm out of options. I look defiantly at the Balrog and shake my head as I proclaim "I didn't want to do this, but you leave me no choice" as I pull a metal buckler out of my backpack.​

Rest of the group: Don't do it, Bob, there has to be another way!​

DM: Okay, guys you're all dead or unconscious. No comments from the peanut gallery. The Balrog steps back in fear "You wouldn't dare!"​

Bob: "Step away now, or Yanthar's Castle will be remembered as Yanthar's Crater!"​

DM: The Balrog, eyes wide in terror "No ... don't do it ... we'll leave right away!"​

Bob: giving his best evil grin I reply "Not before you give in to my other demands" with an evil chuckle as the bracer edges ever more closely to his wrist.​

Alternatively,

DM: As you approach the Balrog and his minions, you see a man with his hands and feet bound and spread eagle in a vertical manner. You see some his minions around the figure strapping pieces of metal armor onto his body, jumping and clapping with glee. Before you can figure out what this puzzle means, the minions back away and figure thrashes momentarily and then explodes. The Balrog laughs and then yells, "Bring out the next druid!"

 

[Undrave]

I don't view it as fluff verbiage because it shows up in the most logical place you would put the rule.

"Will not" is not how you word friggin' rules to a game, dangit! If you saw the same phrase in the big fluff section, would you have seen it as a rule? Nope. Now, imagine if the fluff section included a line that said "Druids are proficient in Light Armour and Hide Armour" you would know that was an out of place piece of rule text, right?

It's not worded like a rule, regardless of where it shows up, and that's the problem I have with it. It sounds like something a first time designer with no experience with actual games would write.

The Barbarian and the Monk have their thematic armors enforced through a good leveraging of rules, taking away some of their features when using the wrong armor (or the wrong weapon even), and the Rogue has its entire Sneak Attack feature designed to promote a roguish gamestyle and aesthetic!

You can't just enforce aesthetics on ONE class by stripping the PC of the free will they enjoy for the rest of the game, it's dumb.

I on't know how anyone with a bit of an appreciation for game design could sit there and just accept this so-called rule as-is without complaint, even if you prefer the aesthetic it enforces.

 

[Oofta]

"Will not" is not how you word friggin' rules to a game, dangit! If you saw the same phrase in the big fluff section, would you have seen it as a rule? Nope. Now, imagine if the fluff section included a line that said "Druids are proficient in Light Armour and Hide Armour" you would know that was an out of place piece of rule text, right?

It's not worded like a rule, regardless of where it shows up, and that's the problem I have with it. It sounds like something a first time designer with no experience with actual games would write.

The Barbarian and the Monk have their thematic armors enforced through a good leveraging of rules, taking away some of their features when using the wrong armor (or the wrong weapon even), and the Rogue has its entire Sneak Attack feature designed to promote a roguish gamestyle and aesthetic!

You can't just enforce aesthetics on ONE class by stripping the PC of the free will they enjoy for the rest of the game, it's dumb.

I on't know how anyone with a bit of an appreciation for game design could sit there and just accept this so-called rule as-is without complaint, even if you prefer the aesthetic it enforces.

Meanwhile I have no problem with the wording. I think it's clear, it's never been confusing to anyone I've ever played with in the real world.

But since I've said that a few dozen times, I don't see any need to discuss it any more. Have a good one.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't view it as fluff verbiage because it shows up in the most logical place you would put the rule.

And the most logical place to put the fluff. It's just poorly worded.