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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

No it does not. This is getting frankly absurd.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To my mind, there's an obvious difference between "How many spell slots does a 5th level wizard have per long rest" and "How do warlock patrons work?" If you seem them as being just differences on a spectrum, then we're simply working with different mental models.

Fair enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

No it does not. This is getting frankly absurd.

It literally says it’s part of the story of the class. I don’t understand how you could possibly interpret it otherwise.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

So is it your opinion that a player should be able to play what they want regardless of the setting the DM has chosen? Gnome paladin in Dark Sun?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It literally says it’s part of the story of the class. I don’t understand how you could possibly interpret it otherwise.

So is spellbooks for wizards! Things evoking the story of the class do not stop them being rules, and it is utterly bizarre that you would think otherwise. Furthermore, I don't think you can really separate rules and fluff in the way you're attempting to do. They're intertwined and there is no clear distinction. Wizards using spellbooks is part of their rules, totem barbarians having spirit totems is part of their rules, warlocks having patrons is part of their rules. And all these things have lore and rules intertwined in them. And the Crawford's text clearly indicates that the druid's armour limitation is binding to the player unless the GM decides otherwise, so in practice it is utterly immaterial whether the thing binding you is rules or fluff. But in reality the answer of course is that it is both.

 

[J.Quondam]

This is getting frankly absurd.

It's no more absurd than barring or booting a player who declares their desperate druid takes up a magic metal shield from a hoard to lessen the impact of a dragon's breath weapon; instead of just ruling what breaking that taboo actually means.

 

[Charlaquin]

So is spellbooks for wizards!

Yes, that is what I said.

Things evoking the story of the class do not stop them being rules, and it is utterly bizarre that you would think otherwise. Furthermore, I don't think you can really separate rules and fluff in the way you're attempting to do. They're intertwined and there is no clear distinction. Wizards using spellbooks is part of their rules, totem barbarians having spirit totems is part of their rules, warlocks having patrons is part of their rules.

Not really. You could have Wizards record their spells with tattoos instead of a book, or keep them in a mind palace, or receive them from the gods if you wanted without changing a single actual rule. All you would be changing is the story. You could have the Path of the Totem’s class features be attained in some other way than being granted by a spirit, you could have warlocks gain their class features by some other means than an arrangement with a patron entity. All of that is story elements, which yes, are woven together with game rules in the designs of those classes, but they can be separated from each other at the DM’s discretion.

And the Crawford's text clearly indicates that the druid's armour limitation is binding to the player unless the GM decides otherwise, so in practice it is utterly immaterial whether the thing binding you is rules or fluff.

Yes of course it’s binding unless the DM decides otherwise. That’s true of everything in the book, rules and lore. If the distinction is immaterial to you, why are you arguing so hard that it must be rules?

But in reality the answer of course is that it is both.

I disagree.

 

[Faolyn]

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

If that were the case, there wouldn't be 53 pages on this thread--and dozens or even scores of other threads on this and other boards--discussing the rule.

At the moment, I'm reading some essays written by The Alexandrian on disassociated rules and why're they're bad, and I think that this is one of them. "no metal armor" is a rule--which may be a rule or it may be a taboo--but no in-game reason for it*, no in-game penalties for breaking it (whether it's a rule or a taboo), and no mechanical penalties for breaking it (ditto).** Everything associated with it is purely homebrew.

*You may say it's because druids are associated with nature, but there are Mountain and Underdark Land Druids, and both of those terrains are well-known for containing natural metal. And while there is currently no official Circle of Ore, I did a quick search and there's several homebrew versions which means people do think about it.

**Again, if you're charmed or dominated--or even just tricked--into wearing metal armor, what happens? Seems like a good way for an evil person to get rid of a meddling druid: offer them a present of magical non-metal Medium armor ("we offer this to you in a token of peace and friendship, made by our greatest smiths and tailored specifically for your needs") but it's actually metal armor with an illusion hiding that fact. Voila!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I'd consider those things to be perfectly viable patrons. Not necessarily sentient patrons (at least not sentience as we humans understand it), but patrons nonetheless. In the Compendium of Forgotten Secrets 3pp, one warlock patron is a library; another is a briar grove.

They're not patrons. A well of magical power without Will that you bind to your Will is not your patron. This is exactly what I'm talking about, why redefine the word patron to include just...literally any source of power regardless of the relationship, when we could instead just recognize that the patron relationship is only what is normal for warlocks, not the entire scope of what is possible?

My first Warlock character was a "magical hacker" who was just as smart as any wizard, but who refused to spend the next decade memorizing the dogma of arcane academia, and instead hacked the underlying code, created a ritual to form a bypass valve in the flow of magic leading into items that he bound to his will with other rituals, and then learnt to do things that mortals can't do via experiment and study of inherently magical creatures.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really. You could have Wizards record their spells with tattoos instead of a book, or keep them in a mind palace, or receive them from the gods if you wanted without changing a single actual rule. All you would be changing is the story. You could have the Path of the Totem’s class features be attained in some other way than being granted by a spirit, you could have warlocks gain their class features by some other means than an arrangement with a patron entity. All of that is story elements, which yes, are woven together with game rules in the designs of those classes, but they can be separated from each other at the DM’s discretion.

I don't really agree that those things are not rules. For example the spellbook is explicitly a book, or at least a collection of notes. This has certain implications that matter. Having it to be an immaterial mind palace for example would be a significant change and would be a clear buff. It's like saying that fighters great sword being an actual sword instead of their fist is just fluff. No it's not.

Yes of course it’s binding unless the DM decides otherwise. That’s true of everything in the book, rules and lore. If the distinction is immaterial to you, why are you arguing so hard that it must be rules?

Because the distinction you're trying to make is bizarre and ultimately confusing. It simply is not how this game works.

I disagree.

I mean it is literally a piece of text that refers to game mechanics that is located in area of the book that explicitly deals wit rules and repeated in a rule summary box. It is pretty absurd claim that it would not be rule.