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

[Chaosmancer]

Tl;dr, you think it is dumb limitation I don't. The one thing I agree with you is that it is somewhat weird that same god has both clerics and druids and in my setting that is not the case. Clerics are powered by gods, druids are powered by nature spirits. But this is just (once again) an issue with the Forgotten Realms lore being dumb.

So, you don't think it is dumb that a druid can have all four limbs replaced by iron and steel prosthetics, but that they will never pick up a metal shield, because that goes against their religion to use such a trapping of civilization?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, you don't think it is dumb that a druid can have all four limbs replaced by iron and steel prosthetics, but that they will never pick up a metal shield, because that goes against their religion to use such a trapping of civilization?

I'd consider that to be weird, yes. However, as I have never seen a druid to want to replace even one of their limbs with metal, it is not an issue in practice.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is it though? Like in practice outside some bizarre strawman hypotheticals? Disadvantage on any ability checks, saving throws, or attack rolls that involves strength or dex, and you can’t cast spells. Does anyone actually do this in a game? The practical result is the same, the armour is not worn.

Yes, because the player has the option to don the armor and there are clear consequences in the rules for what happens if they do so. They have the agency to make that decision if they so desire, and the rules can handle it.

More reasons to ignore Sage Advice. The death of the author!

I mean, sure, by all means ignore Sage Advice if it suits your game to do so. I’m talking about what I believe the rules to say and what they are intended to mean. Nothing wrong with changing the rules if that’s what works for you, but I don’t think that’s really relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[carkl3000]

No one who just reads the PHB in good faith would genuinely come to conclusion that druids would wear metal armour. It is plainly said in three differnt places that they don't. The argument only exists thanks to bizarre internet rules lawyering. (And yes, bizarre, this is weirdest rules-lawyering I've ever seen. "It's not a rule because the designer explained the lore and legacy reasons for the rule.")

I think a new player reading the druid description and interpreting it like it's a rule in a board game would come to that conclusion.

I think a new player that was coming to the game thinking about it as a story-telling game where they create a fantasy character, do their best to inhabit that character, and tell a story with other players in a fantasy world, would see that rule and might wonder "why no metal?", or "what the heck happens if they do use a metal shield?", or if there are medium armors not mentioned in the PHB that they could use that might be better than hide... etc etc.

And I mean this seriously. For a lot of people who have been introduced to the game by listening to a podcast or reading popular media or whatever, they might genuinely be more interested in the creative and improvisational and collaborative aspects of the game than they are in a strict adherence to rules that haven't been explained well.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. But, since there are no consequences given, it’s an incomplete rule. Your only option is to house rule consequences or to tell the player “your character wouldn’t do that,” which steps on their agency.

I'm including RP consequences such as being ostracized by the rest of the Druids.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, because the player has the option to don the armor and there are clear consequences in the rules for what happens if they do so. They have the agency to make that decision if they do desire, and the rules can handle it.

But this is just theoretical. How many times have you encountered a situation in a game where a character has worn armour they are not proficient with? If it is not actually gonna happen then it doesn't matter what would happen if it did.

I mean, sure, by all means ignore Sage Advice if it suits your game to do so. I’m talking about what I believe the rules to say and what they are intended to mean. Nothing wrong with changing the rules if that’s what works for you, but I don’t think that’s really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Well, Sage Advice is not rules. Only rules are rules.

 

[guachi]

Yes, but it could have been written to do that while still not being so awkward. You can defend the trope and still criticize the wording and construction of the rule.

Oh, yeah. 5e rules look like they are written largely for an audience that's played D&D before. That was probably fine in 2014 but now the rules really need to be cleaned up.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, because the player has the option to don the armor and there are clear consequences in the rules for what happens if they do so. They have the agency to make that decision if they so desire, and the rules can handle it.

Yep. To make this argument as clear as I can, the rules should never say "won't". They should say "You shouldn't, because you'll suffer penalty X, Y, and Z if you do."

You don't see wizards avoiding greatswords and plate mail because they "won't", they don't wear it because they suffer penalties from trying and they don't really get any good reason to actually try to use it. Same thing with barbarians and heavy armor, or monk with any armor at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm including RP consequences such as being ostracized by the rest of the Druids.

Yeah, those are the consequences it has in my game as well. I’m just saying, if that’s meant to be a rule, it should say you’ll be ostracized by other druids if you wear it. If it’s meant to be a statement about the setting lore, it works fine as-is.

 

[TwoSix]

But this is just theoretical. How many times have you encountered a situation in a game where a character has worn armour they are not proficient with? If it is not actually gonna happen then it doesn't matter what would happen if it did.

Not really that hypothetical. Should a nature cleric/druid be able to wear plate, in your estimation? Because under current interpretation of the rules, they cannot. If druid proficiency was simply "light, nonmetal medium" then they can. That's a fairly big distinction.