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

[TwoSix]

So I guess in your games wizards have no spells and totem barbarians do not function? I don't know what's going on here...

That the wizard gets a list of spells to prepare, or that the totem barbarian takes half damage from non-psychic damage (if they choose that option) is a rule. The form that the ability takes in the narrative is fluff.

Fluff is changed easily, to fit the story needs of the player and the DM. Rules are changed carefully, to make sure that the challenge of the game is maintained.

You can casually suggest that your wizard's spellbook is actually a set of mystical tattoos. You can't casually suggest that your +3 proficiency bonus is actually a +5.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Sage Advice was not written with P45 in mind but P65, which is the full class entry.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wizards do have spells. Acquiring those spells by study is not a rule, but a story detail. The Path of the Totem Warrior subclass functions, but the idea that those class features are granted by a totem spirit is not a rule, but a story element. These story elements present an implicit default setting, but those assumptions may not hold true in the setting the DM decides to run. Changing those assumptions is changing the story, but the rules may remain the same.

And this is no different from the druid armour issue. "Druids will not wear metal armour" is the rule. Taboo is the attached story element to explain it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

A lot of DMs lord over flavor even more than they do the rules.

That's why so many players are forced to bow and scrape to get to play tielfings and dragonborn and they're literally core races instead of afterthought sentences.

Yeah, that is distasteful. (I'm seeing what I did there... and I'm keeping it! )

Then again, some DMs have very specific ways they want their setting to feel and, accordingly, races/lineages that specifically fit those settings. Not my style to be overly restrictive on player choice in character creation due to "flavor", but I can understand where those DMs are coming from to some degree. The odd tiefling or dragonborn is not going to ruin my campaign - but I think we're getting off topic here.

 

[abirdcall]

Not as much, because the warlock text keeps getting supported. Every time a warlock archetype is produced--by anyone, not just WotC--it supports the warlock's purpose.

The druid armor prohibition isn't supported by anything except "tradition." There's not a single rule or even guideline anywhere in the books that deals with druids and metal armor.

They could have written "druids are proficient in Light armor and hide armor." Or "druids are proficient in Light and Medium armor, but while wearing metal armor, a druid can't cast spells or use wildshape, even if the druid is proficient in that armor." Or "druids are proficient in Light and Medium armor. While they will not wear armor made of metal due to a class-wide taboo, they will wear chain shirts, half-plate, and other such metal armor if it's made of a non-metal substance such as Stoneshroom Leather* or Ironwood" and then included a sidebar in the equipment section on other materials that can be used--and this would have also be handy for making interesting cultures. Maybe wood elves or firbolg prefer these non-metal substances; maybe dwarfs look down on anyone who uses ironwood because it's cheating but are major rockshroom growers.

But they didn't. Unlike the warlock, there is zero support for any interpretation of druids wearing metal armor.

* IMO, stoneshroom sounds better than petrified mushrooms.

What they did was communicate the rule in the most efficient way possible.

It is possible, even probable that there was a paragraph on it that got cut for space.

Will not wear metal armour is as concise and clear as can be.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point is that if one adheres to the rule presented on page 45 (nonmetal armor), then the rules actually do say what happens.

Sure, but I don’t think it’s clear that the text presented on page 45 correctly communicates the intent behind the text on page 65. In fact, I think that’s the weaker way to resolve the inconsistency.

Sage Advice implies that you can get around those consequences by talking to your DM about allowing metal armor for a Druid.

Frankly, I think the Sage Advice just serves to maintain the murkiness of the water on this whole issue.

I think it serves to maintain the murkiness if you interpret the text on page 45 is correct. On the other hand, if you interpret the text on page 45 to be a poorly worded summary, meant to express the same content that’s on page 65, Sage Advice makes it clear that it is intended to be a statement about the lore of the class, not the mechanics. Which is part of why I think that’s the stronger interpretation. When the answer meant to clarify the intent of the text makes sense in the context of one interpretation and doesn’t make sense in the context of the other, it seems clear to me that the interpretation where the clarification makes sense must be the correct one.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sage Advice was not written with P45 in mind but P65, which is the full class entry.

Would have been nice for them to acknowledge both references to druids' armor proficiencies for a more complete Sage Advice answer. Or issue an errata (...checking the errata... nope)

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is no different from the druid armour issue. "Druids will not wear metal armour" is the rule. Taboo is the attached story element to explain it.

Sage Advice makes it clear that “Druids will not wear metal armor” is part of the story of the class. That puts it in the same category as studying to learn spells, not in the category of the rules for spellcasting, which are game mechanics.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but I don’t think it’s clear that the text presented on page 45 correctly communicates the intent behind the text on page 65. In fact, I think that’s the weaker way to resolve the inconsistency.

I think it serves to maintain the murkiness if you interpret the text on page 45 is correct. On the other hand, if you interpret the text on page 45 to be a poorly worded summary, meant to express the same content that’s on page 65, Sage Advice makes it clear that it is intended to be a statement about the lore of the class, not the mechanics. Which is part of why I think that’s the stronger interpretation. When the answer meant to clarify the intent of the text makes sense in the context of one interpretation and doesn’t make sense in the context of the other, it seems clear to me that the interpretation where the clarification makes sense must be the correct one.

Good points. But why does Sage Advice implore the player to seek DM permission for their druid to wear metal? If it is just mutable fluff, why bother? (I mean, I know you can't know the mind of JC, but what do you think is behind that "requirement"?)

 

[Charlaquin]

Good points. But why does Sage Advice implore the player to seek DM permission for their druid to wear metal? If it is just mutable fluff, why bother? (I mean, I know you can't know the mind of JC, but what do you think is behind that "requirement"?)

That’s just the philosophy of D&D 5e. If you want to change the built-in story assumptions, talk to your DM, as they have final say over the lore of the setting.