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

[Iry]

I miss armor material from 4E.
And Dark Sun.
And all those other times we had armor material.

 

[Maxperson]

I miss armor material from 4E.
And Dark Sun.
And all those other times we had armor material.

You mean 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e(limited so far)?

 

[Iry]

You mean 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e(limited so far)?

Yep! Would prefer it to be much more front and center for 5E.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I can. And the description of half-plate is not a rule. Just like I am violating no rules by having bone hooks in the fishing tackle. You claim it is a rule. And you have no evidence.



Really? Because if these are supposed to be rules, not just descriptions, then the only armor that includes a helmet is full plate. No other armor comes with a helmet. That is a rule, so I'd be breaking it and wearing something else if I was not in full plate but had a helmet.

Plate and Scale mail are the only armors that come with gauntlets, if I describe my character as wearing gauntlets, but I am not wearing one of those armors, I'm breaking the rules, right? Because that is a rule.

what if I want to wear breastplate, but I also put on magic bracers? Breastplates "rules" say that they have to leave the legs and arms unprotected. And those bracers clearly have a mechanical impact beyond just being cosmetic. Am I allowed to wear them with Breastplate? What about with Full Plate, if I replace the gauntlets required by the "rules" with bracers and gloves of missile snaring, am I breaking the rules by taking away part of the armor for a mechanical benefit?

Or do the descriptions of the armors only count as rules in the singular instance that they can't be made out of different materials? What if I have leather armor that was boiled in water mixed with wood ash, am I breaking the rules? Because the "rule" is that leather armor is made out of leather boiled in oil.

Hide armor is made of furs and pelts, and a pelt is a hide with fur on it, so what if I said my hide armor was made out of a scaled creature? Does that break the rules, since it is made out of a different material? I mean, Hide isn't made out of skins, so I can't do that right?


Or, last question, are all these sort of ridiculous, because the description of the armor isn't a rule that has to be slavishly followed?



"The rest of the spell entry describes the spells effect" That is a rule that tells you that was is described in the spell is what the spell does. Hence, wall of fire creates a wall of fire, not a wall of water. Why can't a spell do more than what it states? Because the rules say that spells are a "specific, limited expression."

I'm showing you the rules, exactly like I said I would.



Do you think before Tasha's you weren't able to describe a spell differently? Because you seem to subscribe to a "only what is directly stated" reading of the rules.

You wanted examples of why a wall of fire can't be a wall of water. I personally think that the first lines from the PHB cover it. A spell does only what it says it does, and Wall of Fire states it creates a Wall of Fire, and spells are discrete, limited effects. However, Tasha's came out and allowed changes, so couldn't I change the spell? Well, they directly stated that you can't change the spell effect or make a spell look like another spell. Like say... Wall of Fire looking like Wall of Water. So, yet another reason that you can't cast Wall of Fire and create a Wall of Water.

IS there anything like that for armors? Anything that says you cannot make an armor out of anything not described in the armor description?



So, I would never be able to swap steel hooks for bone hooks in Fishing Tackle, because there is a rule that interacts with that description, so it would be homebrewing and the player cannot unilaterally decide to change the rules in that manner. Same with metal ball bearings, can't let those be glass beads, that changes a rules interaction. Same with a hunting trap, can't make a hunting trap that isn't a saw-toothed steel ring, that interacts with another rule, so those are the only types of hunting traps allowed. Mirrors can only be made out of steel, can't have any other type because that would change a rule interaction.

Or, maybe, just maybe, this is ridiculous. A bizarre standard that you are making up without really thinking through how utterly strange it would be.

The equipment has a tag and there is a restriction on a class based on that tag. What you're trying to do would be like playing a halfling, who have restriction on heavy weapons, and just deciding that you can get a greatsword without the heavy tag but otherwise identical. You seem to think that the writers just put in rules that do nothing. I don't. And my reading is backed by Crawford correctly identifying the armours druids are expected to wear under the rules; no half-plate included.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Then extand the restriction to Druid Spellcasting then! I think it'd be dumb but it'll get the druid out of metal armor.

I think what the rule is trying to accomplish is have the Druid NOT wear metal armor, and you're right that I don't understand why this image MUST, absolutely, POSITIVELY, NEVER EVER be broken? Like... D&D is about choices? And somehow this SINGLE rule for a SINGLE class takes all those choices away?! So of course I'm proposing different ways to do it because to me the essential is the end result of a Druid in Hide armor MOST of the time and I don't get why it should be ALL the time to begin with.

Tthe rule, if it wants to act as a proper rule, SHOULD be about giving up things if you wear metal armor, probably important things that you wouldn't want to give up (like a Monk's Martial Arts features). You just make it the least attractive option possible through normal gameplay and nobody will bat an eye.

Yes. You have correctly identified why you don't like the rule!

Because (as has been pointed out for some time now) the rule is similar to older rules. And your proposals will result in different rules that will have different results.

Which is great! But one more time:
1. Your suggested rules aren't the same as this rule- which you acknowledge.
2. You perfectly comprehend this rule (as you show ... you just don't like it).
3. You can't keep saying something isn't a proper rule because you don't like it. It's proper- it's just something that you don't like.

And that's the tension! Trying to put in an older rule (druids don't wear metal armor) and trying to accommodate your desire (D&D is about choices, U KANT TELL ME WUT 2 DO!).

But after ... woah, 2200 posts now, has anyone changed their minds?

 

[Oofta]

Been questioned in plenty of games I've participated in. I've also played in games where druids wore metal armor. And I've also seen and participated in dozens of threads like this, seen multiple videos on the issue, ect ect.

So, if it is a molehill, it is a pretty darn huge mole. Heck, the druid in a recent game told us he knew of the restriction, and he was planning on breaking the taboo, but that it didn't make sense for his character to do that yet. No one else had even brought up the issue yet.

I've been playing D&D pretty much forever with many different people, it's never been an issue. You'd have to do some kind of polling to see if it was at all widespread.

However, there's a simple solution: if you don't like the rule ignore it. If you're not the DM and your DM enforces it, suck it up and accept that you don't always get what you want and that it's hardly the end of the world.

I'm sure you'll accuse me of being dismissive but there are almost always going to be minor things I don't like with any game. There is no such thing as the perfect RPG. So it's a mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

[Laurefindel]

But after ... woah, 2200 posts now, has anyone changed their minds?

I changed mind about five times throughout the thread, but now I’m left with my original stance. Does that count?

I’m cool with the no-metal-armor druid, as i was before. Except now I know why it doesn’t bother me. Acrimonious exchanges aside, I liked this thread

 

[Undrave]

Which is great! But one more time:
1. Your suggested rules aren't the same as this rule- which you acknowledge.
2. You perfectly comprehend this rule (as you show ... you just don't like it).
3. You can't keep saying something isn't a proper rule because you don't like it. It's proper- it's just something that you don't like.

I don't like it because it's badly written. I don't think it's a proper rule because it's not written like every other friggin' rule in the book. It's like a copy paste job from 1e, it has no place in a modern game. And I hate that if any player ever questions it, it falls on the DM to houserule a reason or even a punishment for breaking the taboo. It offers no guidance whatsoever to the DM, not even a few possible reasons why the taboo exist that could lead to interesting stories. Nothing.

And I still don't understand why this particular instance of enforcing an aesthetic through rules has to be SOOOO different from every friggin' instance of enforcing aesthetic through rules in the rest of the game. There's no consistency here, and it frankly feel like a last minute change an amateur wrote it without considering proper rule syntax. Like, the restrictions on the Monk are RIDICULOUS if you think a little too long on them, but they're easy to grasp and they do their job and there is no ambiguity as to what occurs if the Monk has to put on metal armor for a reason. Heck, if you put punishment to putting on metal armor in the class features, you can STILL keep the 'A druid will not wear metal armor" parts and that way we'll understand why and it would still open them to dragon scale armor. Maybe throw in a 'traditionally' in there for pete's sake.

The goal of the rule is NOT complicated: keep the druid in non-metallic armor. But the specific rule as it is "Druids will not wear armor made of metal or use metal shield" is basically the worse and the stupidest way to accomplish that goal and I don't see value in offering a better wording of this specific way of doing it. Because I don't think it's worth doing it that way. Trying to explain that your Druid, somehow, doesn't even get to CONSIDER what it means to break a taboo (how can it even be a taboo if its impossible to break?!) just baffles me as far as rules go.

 

[Undrave]

Also, in this thread: wanting your character to be harder to hit and thus more likely to survive is being a power gamer...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, in this thread: wanting your character to be harder to hit and thus more likely to survive is being a power gamer...

Demanding rules to be changed in your favour or just ignoring rules is going beyond being a power gamer. Power gamers usually are satisfied to build as powerful character they can within the confines of the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

But after ... woah, 2200 posts now, has anyone changed their minds?

I'm beginning to want druids to just explode. Never mind the metal armor. Just blow em all up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm beginning to want druids to just explode. Never mind the metal armor. Just blow em all up.

Naw. That's the BARD rule.

Druids might suck, but Bards blow.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, in this thread: wanting your character to be harder to hit and thus more likely to survive is being a power gamer...

As I've pointed out, though. 19=19 so it doesn't even make the druid class harder to hit.

 

[Undrave]

Naw. That's the BARD rule.

Druids might suck, but Bards blow.

"You can't play the flute by sucking! Well... not THAT kinda flute anyway." -Bard

 

[Maxperson]

"You can't play the flute by sucking! Well... not THAT kinda flute anyway." -Bard

Champagne flute? Every Bard I've known has been a drunkard.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Champagne flute? Every Bard I've known has been a drunkard.

Hey- don't give drunkards a bad name by sullying them with an association to Bards.

I have known those who abstain from strong drink; sometimes totally, and sometimes tolerably totally.

 

[tetrasodium]

The equipment has a tag and there is a restriction on a class based on that tag. What you're trying to do would be like playing a halfling, who have restriction on heavy weapons, and just deciding that you can get a greatsword without the heavy tag but otherwise identical. You seem to think that the writers just put in rules that do nothing. I don't. And my reading is backed by Crawford correctly identifying the armours druids are expected to wear under the rules; no half-plate included.

No it does not, 5e does not have equipment tags in the name of simplicity. 4e's armor & weapon properties or 3.5e's material types & enchantment types could be a tag, but 5e did away with all of those things in the name of simplicity. What you may have meant to say is that your houserule adds equipment tags but that is both a houserule outside RAW as well as an entirely undefined houserule, do you share the houserule itself with your players or jut let them discover it?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No it does not, 5e does not have equipment tags in the name of simplicity. 4e's armor & weapon properties or 3.5e's material types & enchantment types could be a tag, but 5e did away with all of those things in the name of simplicity. What you may have meant to say is that your houserule adds equipment tags but that is both a houserule outside RAW as well as an entirely undefined houserule, do you share the houserule itself with your players or jut let them discover it?

That the information is in the item description doesn't stop it being tag for rules purposes. It is a thing other rules interact with. And this is perfectly clear to most people; they're not confused about what armours druids are allowed to wear or on which armours heat metal works on. Because the rules clearly tell you that.

 

[Undrave]

That the information is in the item description doesn't stop it being tag for rules purposes. It is a thing other rules interact with. And this is perfectly clear to most people; they're not confused about what armours druids are allowed to wear or on which armours heat metal works on. Because the rules clearly tell you that.

People know because people make assumption based on their own knowledge, NOT because the rules 'clearly tell you'. They tell you something alright and it's easy to understand what it means but I wouldn't consider it 'rule text' in a proper sense. Descriptions aren't tags!

Heat Metal is more of a case by case basis "Is X wearing metal armor?" "Yes/No" and not "Is X wearing Half-Plate?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

From what I can tell, 4e does allow for it but they don't start with anything over cloth, leather, or hide. If they pick it up with a feat though, there doesn't seem to be any penalty. Instead, they have a bonus if they don't wear heavy armour, something that they should have done with 5e. Limit druid powers, like wildshape, or provide a bonus for not wearing metal armour. If they'd led with something like that, there wouldn't be a single thread asking about druid armour.

Honestly, I'm really jazzed with the idea of offering bonuses. The spirits of the plants and animals rallying to defend you and improving the leather and hides to make it something more? That is an amazing concept.

I also feel like providing a bonus is more effective than a penalty, but that is just some psychology talking,