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

[Chaosmancer]

How can you not get it? It is terrible game design to make players choose between archetypal theme and a mechanical benefit. The rules should do the exact opposite!

Because there should be no mechanical benefit. If the mechanical benefit is that huge that it cannot be overcome by a passion for the theme, then you should provide the alternative types of armor that were traditionally available for Druids.

Then both the theme and the mechanics are satisfied. I'd just remove the non-metal theme, because I think it is nonsensical but there you go.

I mean, the list of fairly natural creatures that breastplates and half-plate could be made of is decently sizable.

Ankheg
Basilisk
Behir
Bulette
Chimera
Anklosaurus
Dragon Turtle
Gorgon
Grick Alpha
Hook Horror
Hydra
Naga
Otyugh
Piercer
Purple Worm
Remorhaz
Roper
Roc
Shambling Mound
Troll
Umber Hulk
Abominable Yeti
Giant Crocodile
Giant Scorpion

And that is just the MM and just the creatures whose natural armor is 14 or higher. Let construction and reinforcement be a thing and few other options open up, like Giant Crabs.

Additionally, this isn't something that would somehow "break a classical setting" because again... people do this stuff. If I went down to a swamp area like the Everglades and I DIDN'T see people with stuffed gators or gator skulls as decorations anywhere, I'd be confused. If there are Giant Crocs whose hide could be used as armor, then there are going to be people using that hide to make things. Like armor. IT would after all be cheaper than importing armor.

And if the druid is really interested in hunting down their own Giant Croc to skin and fashion the armor from the hide, scales and bones themselves... then more power to them, but if they aren't, just making it a thing they can buy off someone, maybe an old hunter who doesn't need it anymore, isn't somehow destroying your world-building.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And if the druid is really interested in hunting down their own Giant Croc to skin and fashion the armor from the hide, scales and bones themselves... then more power to them, but if they aren't, just making it a thing they can buy off someone, maybe an old hunter who doesn't need it anymore, isn't somehow destroying your world-building.

I agree, with the caveat that the preferred armor for Druids isn't the spell Barkskin, it's the armor Bardskin.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm saying this to point out that there are two basic issues:
A. I don't like the rule qua rule (I think that Druids should be able to wear metal armor).
B. I don't like the rule's implementation (I don't like the way the rule is worded).

Pretty much this. Like, I don't like the A part of the rule and don't enforce it in my games, but I'm totally fine with it being in the PHB to enforce traditional tropes. Striking the balance between enforcing game tropes and allowing player freedom requires legitimately difficult design decisions, and I'm totally fine with my preferences and the book not being in 100% alignment.

For B, though, I legitimately don't understand how anyone (or if anyone does) think the way its presented in the book is anywhere close to the best way to present that rule. The implementation is inherently problematic, even if you like the idea behind it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because there should be no mechanical benefit. If the mechanical benefit is that huge that it cannot be overcome by a passion for the theme, then you should provide the alternative types of armor that were traditionally available for Druids.

Then both the theme and the mechanics are satisfied. I'd just remove the non-metal theme, because I think it is nonsensical but there you go.

I mean, the list of fairly natural creatures that breastplates and half-plate could be made of is decently sizable.

Ankheg
Basilisk
Behir
Bulette
Chimera
Anklosaurus
Dragon Turtle
Gorgon
Grick Alpha
Hook Horror
Hydra
Naga
Otyugh
Piercer
Purple Worm
Remorhaz
Roper
Roc
Shambling Mound
Troll
Umber Hulk
Abominable Yeti
Giant Crocodile
Giant Scorpion

And that is just the MM and just the creatures whose natural armor is 14 or higher. Let construction and reinforcement be a thing and few other options open up, like Giant Crabs.

Additionally, this isn't something that would somehow "break a classical setting" because again... people do this stuff. If I went down to a swamp area like the Everglades and I DIDN'T see people with stuffed gators or gator skulls as decorations anywhere, I'd be confused. If there are Giant Crocs whose hide could be used as armor, then there are going to be people using that hide to make things. Like armor. IT would after all be cheaper than importing armor.

And if the druid is really interested in hunting down their own Giant Croc to skin and fashion the armor from the hide, scales and bones themselves... then more power to them, but if they aren't, just making it a thing they can buy off someone, maybe an old hunter who doesn't need it anymore, isn't somehow destroying your world-building.

Right. So this is about powergaming. You just have to have that best AC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

True! Just like the Barbarian, the Monk, the Rogue, or even the 4e Druid itself, there should be mechanical penalties for going against theme.

Just want to jump in on a detail.

Did you know that Barbarians can use metal half-plate and a shield (Sarcasm)? In fact, I've actually found that because of how the priorities work, a Barbarian is better off in half-plate unless their con and dex modifier is +8 combined, meaning either a 20 con/16 dex or an 18/18 split. And even then, magical armor has benefits.

A classical Barbarian is seen not using armor, but they absolutely can, and people do go unarmored and without a shield for barbarians. But the option also exists to do the opposite. And... they still feel like a barbarian.

 

[TwoSix]

Right. So this is about powergaming. You just have to have that best AC.

Let's remember powergaming is a legitimate play desire and should not be shamed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And yet, it is there. You do not like the implementation of the rule, which is ... totally cool! I get it. I'm not arguing with you that you do not like the way the rule is written.* But just because you don't like a rule, doesn't make it ... not a rule.

And when asked, the method to not have the rule is the same as it is for anything else, talk to your DM-
"If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM."


*As an exercise-

Would it be better if the rule said, "Can not"? "Shall not"? No?

Okay, what if the rule was written with consequences? If it had the worst consequences ever, would that make a difference to you? If the effect of wearing metal armor was the same as getting hit with a (no save) disintegrate spell for 500 hit points, is that better? Or do people want manageable consequences?

Or, would you prefer detailed rules about a "taboo breaker" Druid? Like the oath breaker paladin? Or just rules for losing all your powers?

I'm saying this to point out that there are two basic issues:
A. I don't like the rule qua rule (I think that Druids should be able to wear metal armor).
B. I don't like the rule's implementation (I don't like the way the rule is worded).

A & B are different. I think that there are people who see the restriction on druids, which carries through- it includes multiclass, feats, whatever. They don't like A. They want the ability to wear metal armor. And they conflate that with B (they don't like the implementation).

Now, there are other people that are just saying "I don't think it's a rule," but ... you know, I can't help them. At a minimum, even if you truly believe it's not a rule for ... reasons, I'm not sure how you can not understand why other people view it as a rule. shrug

Actually, it would be better if it was cannot. I wouldn't be satisfied, because I still think the restriction is nonsensical because metal is natural and Druid's can wear and use metal in dozens of ways except this to specific ones, but at least if it was a cannot then it would be better.

I think rules exactly like for the Paladin in 5e could work as well, though again, I find the restriction itself pointless, I could at least see it like breaking a paladin oath where if you did it and are repentant then there is something to go off of.

So, yeah, I don;t the like rule itself and I do not like the way it is implemented. Those are different things, and I am against both of them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let's remember powergaming is a legitimate play desire and should not be shamed.

That's right! Playing styles shouldn't be shamed.

....playing CHOICES should be shamed. Like choosing to play bards and soulless, dead-eyed Elves.

 

[Undrave]

Would it be better if the rule said, "Can not"?

Yes. Because then it becomes about ability and proficiencies, and not gets into the mind of the player's character!

I'm saying this to point out that there are two basic issues:
A. I don't like the rule qua rule (I think that Druids should be able to wear metal armor).
B. I don't like the rule's implementation (I don't like the way the rule is worded).

I am fine with Druids not getting to wear Armour better than Hide as a default, but if a PC wants to there should be way for them to gain such proficiency.

I absolutely hate the way that is implement in the game because it doesn't look like a rule at all. If it was ANYWHERE else in the Druid class section but the Proficiency list, it would NEVER be considered a rule. It's that simple. It's only a "rule" because it happens to be placed right next to the actual rule about what the Druid is proficient with.

Just want to jump in on a detail.

Did you know that Barbarians can use metal half-plate and a shield (Sarcasm)? In fact, I've actually found that because of how the priorities work, a Barbarian is better off in half-plate unless their con and dex modifier is +8 combined, meaning either a 20 con/16 dex or an 18/18 split. And even then, magical armor has benefits.

A classical Barbarian is seen not using armor, but they absolutely can, and people do go unarmored and without a shield for barbarians. But the option also exists to do the opposite. And... they still feel like a barbarian.

Exactly. It's all about making choices in how you build your character and the rules basically creating a 'path of least resistance' toward the thematic archetype. Nothing says "A Rogue will not use a halberd": they can gain that proficiency and swing the weapon around... but they don't get to use their signature Sneak Attack with it, so they don't do it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's remember powergaming is a legitimate play desire and should not be shamed.

When a person demands rules to be changed so that they can powergame better it has definitely gone too far.