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

[Crimson Longinus]

But as the actual rules of most of the older editions, including 1e state, the penalty for breaking that in-fiction rule was simply the loss of magical powers and spells. You weren't actually prevented from putting it on.

I don't think that is true, but I'm not gonna verify that as I don't have anything pre 3e at hand. I'll trust @Snarf Zagyg will handle this.

That being said, inability to use spells and wildshape was my suggestion for consequence-based version of the armour limitation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And the language. "Will not" = choice. It is not written in a proscriptive context.

'Will not' means you have no choice; the choice has already been made. It is not 'might not.'

 

[Maxperson]

And if they eat meat they are no longer a vegetarian.

If they do it on a regular basis, then sure, they are no longer a vegetarian. If it's an exception for reasons, then they are still a vegetarian.

As it says in sage advice: "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class." If you wear metal armor and the DM decides it's not okay in their campaign the PC is no longer a druid.

Wearing metal armor as an exception does not depart from the class story.

 

[Faolyn]

Druids have wildshape, elves see in the dark, wizards don't know healing spells, fireball does fire damage and like half the rules in the book.

None of those are fluff and they all have distinct rules attached.

You repeating it doesn't make it true. You don't get to choose which rules in the book are rules. (Unless you're the GM, and then that's called making houserules.)

You have to show that the parenthetical aside is a rule. It's been specifically said to be a cultural taboo. Taboos are not rules, unless there is some mechanical effect attached to them. Such as a paladin's oaths (taboos) that cause the paladin to become an Oathbreaker if broken.

You don't add sneak attack damage to the great sword attack for exactly the same reason than druids don't wear metal armour: the rules don't allow it. There is no penalty, it simply isn't allowed. How are you able to grasp it with the sneak attack, but not with the armour?

A rogue can use a greatsword to stab someone, but they don't get the sneak attack damage. They are not otherwise prevented from picking up a greatsword and attacking with it.

So what happens if a druid puts on chainmail? Saying "they just don't do it" is a very lazy answer.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is true, but I'm not gonna verify that as I don't have anything pre 3e at hand. I'll trust @Snarf Zagyg will handle this.

That being said, inability to use spells and wildshape was my suggestion for consequence-based version of the armour limitation.

No need. Here it is from the 1e PHB. Now, it is in parentheses, so that makes it a rule.

"The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)."

There's no need to put in a mechanical penalty of "spoils their magical powers" unless it's possible for them to put it on and have said powers spoiled.

 

[Maxperson]

'Will not' means you have no choice; the choice has already been made. It is not 'might not.'

Oh, man. All those times when my mother said, "You will not do X young man." and I did it anyway must never have happened. That really sucks. I got into all kinds of trouble for things that never happened. "Will not" in the PHB context = choice, not proscriptive.

 

[J.Quondam]

So what happens if a druid puts on chainmail? Saying "they just don't do it" is a very lazy answer.

Exactly.
That's why I'm wondering what's supposed to happen when a druid PC simply asks the question in the world. I mean there's got to be some in-world effect or rationale or something. And once that's established, there's no reason not to correct/clarify/complete the bad RAW with whatever the GM decides.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

None of those are fluff and they all have distinct rules attached.

They're all rules that exists to emulate fluff. Just like the druid armour rules.

You have to show that the parenthetical aside is a rule.

No. You have to show that a rule in a middle of other rules in a rule section of the book isn't a rule. Which you can't, because it would be absurd for it not to be.

It's been specifically said to be a cultural taboo. Taboos are not rules, unless there is some mechanical effect attached to them. Such as a paladin's oaths (taboos) that cause the paladin to become an Oathbreaker if broken.

There is a mechanic. "Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal." That's the mechanic. That the taboo is the in world justification for that rule, doesn't in any way or form make it not a rule.

A rogue can use a greatsword to stab someone, but they don't get the sneak attack damage. They are not otherwise prevented from picking up a greatsword and attacking with it.

But what if they just add the sneak attack to the great sword damage anyway, what then? Obviously the limitation to finesse weapons is just a fluff to reinforce the story of the class, and not an actual rule!

So what happens if a druid puts on chainmail? Saying "they just don't do it" is a very lazy answer.

But that's the RAW answer. RAW is lazy, doesn't stop it being the RAW. Feel free to houserule it. I would.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, man. All those times when my mother said, "You will not do X young man." and I did it anyway must never have happened. That really sucks. I got into all kinds of trouble for things that never happened. "Will not" in the PHB context = choice, not proscriptive.

Right. So you broke the rule. Doing that in game is known as cheating.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. So you broke the rule. Doing that in game is known as cheating.

Yes, just like druids can break their in-fiction rule. There is nothing that prevents it. And sure, the druid in the game is cheating and if he gets caught by other druids, can be in a lot of trouble. I agree.