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

[Yaarel]

If DMs want a "rule" to encourage lighter armors, how about this?

The Wildshape transformation can merge with any equipment made out of animal products, such as leather, fur, scales, horn, ivory, and bone, but not other materials.

So, the convenience of bringing ones equipment along with the Wildshape will tend to encourage leaving other materials behind.

Meanwhile, cantrips can be in place to make these effective weapons, or grant natural weapons, like bite or claw or gore or ram.

Then, the various class features that modify Wildshape, can also determine what materials can merge with it.

A Druid focusing on transforming into an earth elemental has no problem merging metal armor, but might have difficulty merging animal materials.

 

[Maxperson]

Not convinced. Crystals are significantly different to books. They seem far sturdier than books for example. Definitely not flammable. In any case, this is kind of continuum, as you must notice in this attempt to find the clear cut off point between rules and fluff; it is not clear at all.

Not really sturdier. You're just trading vulnerabilities. The book can burn, but it's not going to shatter if an irate innkeeper tosses it out of the second story window. It's also going to be more attractive to magic illiterate thieves. Who wants a dusty old book? That gem, though...

 

[Northern Phoenix]

If DMs want a "rule" to encourage lighter armors, how about this?

The Wildshape transformation can merge with any equipment made out of animal products, such as leather, fur, scales, horn, ivory, and bone, but not other materials.

So, the convenience of bringing ones equipment along with the Wildshape will tend to encourage leaving other materials behind.

Meanwhile, cantrips can be in place to make these effective weapons, or grant natural weapons, like bite or claw or gore or ram.

Then, the various class features that modify Wildshape, can also determine what materials can merge with it.

A Druid focusing on transforming into an earth elemental has no problem merging metal armor, but might have difficulty merging animal materials.

I'd personally prefer the unarmored defense route, if we're doing larger "fixes".

 

[Maxperson]

Man, I could boil a pot of coffee with just my righteous indignation alone!

A pot of coffee would give me righteous indigestion.

 

[Maxperson]

There are people who want to get rid of the restriction altogether. So that would.

But I think those people are fairly rare. I mean, even those on my side of things haven't encountered someone who asked to put on metal armor. This is just a discussion about what we WOULD do if someone asked. Those few rare people wouldn't lead to it being the de facto norm.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to taboos and the (silly IMHO) scenario where a druid has to wear metal armor to save the world ... I have a story.

TLDR version: I don't think making light of religious beliefs should be part of the game.

Longer version:
Long ago in a galaxy ... um .... edition far far away in a campaign called Living Greyhawk, I played a paladin. Yep, lawful good, gung-ho, firmly leaning in to the trope. Imagine The Tick as a paladin. Never forced anyone else to go along with him, although he would voice his opinion if he disagreed. Most of the group was pretty like minded so it wasn't a big deal.

Then we had a mod where we were supposed to literally choose between helping a demon or a devil. No other choice was given, it felt like a giant middle finger to anyone who ran a PC who would rather die with honor than help either one. The DM had pity on us and gave us a third option that was just higher risk which I was okay with.

Now, this was a module and it wasn't the DM's fault. However, if it had been the DM's idea to do this I would have had a major problem with it for that particular PC. Other PCs I ran it wouldn't have been as big of an issue but the mod was asking my paladin to break his vows, to do something he swore he would never do.

To some DMs that may be a "moral dilemma". To me? It was an artificial scenario scripted specifically to be a giant f*** you and the horse you rode in on*. Screw anyone who takes their PC's vows seriously.

If I was playing a druid and I took my taboo against wearing metal armor seriously, I would feel the same way. While I'm going to plead the 5th on personal religious beliefs or lack therein, people's faith is not something to f*** around with just because you can. The DM would have to knowingly set up this very specific scenario in an attempt to force someone to ignore a taboo, a very fundamental part of their belief system. I don't think it's okay to make lightly of religious beliefs like that.

In any case I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread other than the occasional fishing for laughs. I was just thinking about how I hadn't really explained why I think forcing a druid to wear metal armor should ever be a thing.

*My paladin's horse's name was Snert BTW and because the way 3.5 worked Snert was eventually smarter than my paladin.

 

[Yaarel]

I'd personally prefer the unarmored defense route, if we're doing larger "fixes".

I could live with that.



The 5e Druid is awkward because it forces different kinds of concepts together, in a way that hasnt synthesized thematically or mechanically.

There are at least four separate concepts, that could even be designed as separate classes.
• Shapeshifter Beast
• Elemental Fullcaster
• Healer
• Gish

The Elementalist aspect probably should include Plant as a kind of element. The Elementalism is a character concept in itself.

Probably the Healing is an aspect of Shapeshift magic, to grow wounds back together, and to shift an ill body into a healthy form.

Alternatively, the Healing can be part of Elementalism, in the sense of primal beings including both fey (Positive) and shadow (Negative).

The Gish can synergize with Beast, with the Beast doing the bulk of the melee combat.

I feel strongly that character creation at level 1 must make the big decision of what kind of Druid concept the player wants. The choice of a circle at level 1, could dramatically alter what kind of shapeshifting is available, thus deeply influence the themes and mechanics available, immediately and at later levels.

 

[J.Quondam]

When it comes to taboos and the (silly IMHO) scenario where a druid has to wear metal armor to save the world ... I have a story.

TLDR version: I don't think making light of religious beliefs should be part of the game.

That's an excellent point. A "don't mess with religious beliefs" understanding absolutely should be established for players and groups that want that. At the same time, of course, that sort of thing is meat and potatoes for plenty of other groups.
That's definitely a "big picture" thing that must be set absolutely straight in Session Zero.

 

[CleverNickName]

The 5e Druid is awkward because it forces different kinds of concepts together, in a way that hasnt synthesized thematically or mechanically.

There are at least four separate concepts, that could even be designed as separate classes.

The Ranger has this problem too, trying to fill multiple concepts at the same time (is it an Aragorn? a Legolas? a Rambo? a Beastmaster? All of them at once?! Nobody knows!)

 

[Northern Phoenix]

The Ranger has this problem too, trying to fill multiple concepts at the same time (is it an Aragorn? a Legolas? a Rambo? a Beastmaster? All of them at once?! Nobody knows!)

I'd certainly say that what it wants to be is "all of them at once".