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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Well, it has been established that that there is a tradition for the justification being it spoiling their druidic magic, as well as it being a cultural taboo. It could easily be both, the, the latter forming due the former. So if we go with that, then more simulationistic rule would be the druids not being able to cast spells and use wildshape whist wearing metal, and possible social consequences of breaking a cultural taboo too. Though if the taboo is actually religious at the level that the gods/spirits care about it, breaking it might have some longer term ramifications, as those things are the source of the druidic magic. Though that might be too unwieldy and extreme and not something 5e much does.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Except it is not just an in fiction rule, it is an actual rule of the game.

 

[Faolyn]

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

And yet those rules are generally supported in other parts of the text.

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.

So what happens if a druid does end up wearing metal armor? I've asked this question many times and have gotten no answers.

As I said before, if a rogue uses a greatsword, they don't get the sneak attack damage. What do druids not get if they wear chain?

Edit: And I don't mean homebrew rules.

 

[mrpopstar]

And yet those rules are generally supported in other parts of the text.


So what happens if a druid does end up wearing metal armor? I've asked this question many times and have gotten no answers.

As I said before, if a rogue uses a greatsword, they don't get the sneak attack damage. What do druids not get if they wear chain?

Edit: And I don't mean homebrew rules.

They don't get whatever the Dungeon Master says they don't get, which isn't a home-brewed rule.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what happens if a druid does end up wearing metal armor? I've asked this question many times and have gotten no answers.

As I said before, if a rogue uses a greatsword, they don't get the sneak attack damage. What do druids not get if they wear chain?

No, you're still not getting it. RAW answer to that is same than to the question to what happens if rogue adds sneak attack damage to a great sword attack. There is no answer, because that simply isn't allowed by the rules. Rules don't allow druids to to wear metal armour so question 'what if they do' isn't covered by the rules.

I understand not liking this. I don't like it either. What I don't understand is not understanding it.

 

[DnD Warlord]

And if they eat meat they are no longer 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.

And then what… okay I am not a Druid I still keep my spells powers and hd

 

[Oofta]

It is literally a parenthetical aside, and it's not an exception. If it was an exception, it would have been written as "druids are not proficient in metal armors." Instead, they wrote it as a choice the druid makes.


"If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. [...] As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."

They didn't say "druids aren't proficient in metal armor." They said "talk to your DM; it's not going to hurt anything if your druid wears metal, but it might not be appropriate to the campaign's theme and flavor." They wouldn't say that if it were about breaking a rule.

Plus, every other one of Crawford's tweets on druids in metal armor refers to it as a taboo.


I'm not pretending it's not really a rule because I don't like it. I'm claiming it's not really a rule because it's specifically a cultural taboo with no mechanical or social consequences for breaking it. (Seriously, I asked you what the penalties are. Well?)

There is no need for a penalty because they won't wear it. But it's the same penalty for rogues sneak attacking with a greatsword.

It's not like the rule is buried in flavor text, it's in the most logical place it could possibly be.

But I need to go back to not posting anything serious. There's no point.

EDIT: if you feel strongly enough about any rule you can always ask your DM to change it.

 

[DnD Warlord]

No, you're still not getting it. RAW answer to that is same than to the question to what happens if rogue adds sneak attack damage to a great sword attack. There is no answer, because that simply isn't allowed by the rules. Rules don't allow druids to to wear metal armour so question 'what if they do' isn't covered by the rules.

I understand not liking this. I don't like it either. What I don't understand is not understanding it.

And yet you have been in this thread since almost the beginning with other intelligent people who in good faith do not understand why YOU think it is a rule.

no one as far as I know doesn’t know what happens if a rouge attacks with advantage with a two handed weapon. Yet people DO not understand what happens if my Druid cleric paliden uses his mechanical ability to wear armor.

 

[Umbran]

No. I just believe that rules exist, I read them, and I understand what they say.

Right. So you just choose which rules are 'actual rules.' Cool. Not gonna cause any issues at all if all players do this...

Mod note:
So, here you are being snarky about not causing issues...

Look back at how you've been talking to folks. As if that wasn't going to cause issues?

Treat folks with respect. If you can't do that, then just disengage, as you're not being constructive this way.

 

[J.Quondam]

Well, it has been established that that there is a tradition for the justification being it spoiling their druidic magic, as well as it being a cultural taboo. It could easily be both, the, the latter forming due the former. So if we go with that, then more simulationistic rule would be the druids not being able to cast spells and use wildshape whist wearing metal, and possible social consequences of breaking a cultural taboo too. Though if the taboo is actually religious at the level that the gods/spirits care about it, breaking it might have some longer term ramifications, as those things are the source of the druidic magic. Though that might be too unwieldy and extreme and not something 5e much does.

Cool! Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of an epic 40d8-per-round heat metal spell fueled by Gaia's white hot rage!
But yours seems like a mechanically reasonable, canonically consistent clarification that maintains the integrity of the druid class, too.