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

[Crimson Longinus]

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."

Yes, that would be better.

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.

But this still proves that in practice it rarely matters. The end result is the same: they don't use those things.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

That's a pretty good one, very fitting with the D&D idea of "druids" and consistent with the rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Come on, folks. This "Prove it! Prove it or ELSE!" attitude isn't helpful.

It's in the Player's Handbook, right there next to the druid's armor proficiencies. It's different, but it's there. We can go (and have gone) nuts with discussions of why it's there, and how it got there, and whether or not it should be there at all, but...it's still there.

If you want to play a druid and you have an issue with this (or any other) rule, all you have to do is ask your DM about it and talk it through. Your DM might change the rule and give you an alternative, or they might suggest you pick a different class to play if your character concept is focused on metal armor, it's all good. That's totally cool.

Or you could play the rule as intended: your DM might ask you "So tell us a little about your druid: why won't your druid wear metal armor?" and that would give you a chance to say something cool and personal about your character, something like "my druid is claustrophobic and cannot stand the thought of being encased in inorganic material" or whatever, and the story is richer for it. That's cool too.

But it's not cool for you to say "I'm going to play a druid, but I don't like this one rule so I'm going to ignore it. My druid is going to make a beeline to the armor shop, buy a steel breastplate, and wear it, rules be damned. And then I'm going to argue with you, and the rulebook, and everyone else at this table until everyone agrees with me." Seriously, who does that?

Because it is inconsistent, but people want to enforce it absolutely.

For example, if I was playing a druid who was claustrophobic and couldn't stand to be "encased" in something inorganic, that could be a really cool idea to play with.... but then I would still be able to use a metal shield, and some of the people in this discussion would either tell me I can't, or uninvite me from the game for breaking the rules. Because the rules say I will never pick up a metal shield.

And, if I was that claustrophobic, and it was affecting the group, then my character overcoming that fear and wearing metal armor in the final fight could be a good heroic moment... except I'd be breaking the rules again and many of the DMs here would tell me I'm not allowed to have that moment.

It is the nonsensical nature of this "rule" that gets me more than anything else. Followed by people's response that the best thing is to have the druid have a special quest to earn something that everyone else can just have with no issues.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

That's a different question. It is again about circumventing the limitation, not about what the effects of the limitation are if it is in place.

And I don't allow multiclassing, so that specific example would not come up.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It matters what would happen if it did because what happens if it did is how players make decisions about whether or not to make it happen. The only times I’ve seen PCs don armor they aren’t proficient with is as part of a disguise, and that’s because the consequences are so harsh. On the other hand, I’ve seen PCs use weapons they aren’t proficient with much more often because the consequences aren’t nearly as harsh. With the druid metal armor restriction, the player doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the consequences and decide if they’re worth it in any given situation. They just “won’t.” Not even cant, won’t! That’s a violation of their agency as a player in my book.

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

Right, but it clarifies the intent of the rules. Well, this one does.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Not even cannot! Will not!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It matters what would happen if it did because what happens if it did is how players make decisions about whether or not to make it happen. The only times I’ve seen PCs don armor they aren’t proficient with is as part of a disguise, and that’s because the consequences are so harsh. On the other hand, I’ve seen PCs use weapons they aren’t proficient with much more often because the consequences aren’t nearly as harsh. With the druid metal armor restriction, the player doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the consequences and decide if they’re worth it in any given situation. They just “won’t.” Not even cant, won’t! That’s a violation of their agency as a player in my book.

Ok, fair enough.

Right, but it clarifies the intent of the rules. Well, this one does.

Or "clarifies..."

 

[Charlaquin]

But this still proves that in practice it rarely matters. The end result is the same: they don't use those things.

Rarely matters =/= doesn’t matter.

Moreover, it matters a great deal. There is a world of difference between “you can do this if you want, but here’s what will happen if you do” and “you won’t do this.” It’s about the options proposition, not the end result.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or "clarifies..."

Haha, good point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, it's a fairly big difference because getting armor proficiency through feats or MC is really common. I would dip fighter or cleric for a druid all the time if they weren't restricted from wearing heavy armor because of that stupid clause.

Hell, one of my current characters is a druid with a subclass I made myself that gets unarmored defense. And that's because I found having to discuss whether I can get natural armor found or made so irritating the last time I played a druid.

Yeah, if they were simply not proficient in metal armors, then taking a single level dip into Nature Cleric would be the best thing ever for druids. Extra cantrip, extra skill, prof in heavy armors like platemail, and two auto-prepared spells on their spell list. Plus access gained into spells like Bless, Bane, Healing Word, Guiding Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Shield of Faith.

It is almost worth doing anyways.