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

[lingual]

I dont understand the tone with regard to studded leather? Is it implying that because D&D is a fantasy game that I must like and acquiesce to studded leather?

I consider studded leather to be as nonsensical as using a fur loincloth as armor.

You are completely free to ban studded leather from your game. No is saying you must agree to it. You are still playing DnD if you ban it.

 

[Yaarel]

You are completely free to ban studded leather from your game. No is saying you must agree to it. You are still playing DnD if you ban it.

Of course, a setting or a table can ban, modify, or replace studded leather. It is especially easy to change weapons and armor. It is like adding new spells. Modular.



But I can still critique the design of having it. If I recall correctly, 4e lacks studded leather because it is nonsensical.

 

[Yaarel]

The founding fathers probably just meant brigandine armor but thought studded leather was more descriptive. I think the concept of studded leather being brigandine armor is okay.

I think the founders didnt understand armor, because they were referencing certain antiquated books about armor that misunderstood stylized medieval illustrations of armor. Such as not realizing that the "studs" were a brigandine (= scale armor!), or not realizing the "rings" were chain armor.

 

[Maxperson]

Sage Advice clarified little.

Because of Sage Advice, I now know that a non-proficient Druid wont "explode" in metal armor.

Otherwise, the reference to a non-5e "taboo", only exlains why the Druid class lacks the proficiency.

It is still normal to gain this proficiency from an other source.



Probably, the Players Handbook needs errata to rephrase wording that many players evidentally find ambiguous.

You need to read the Sage Advice again. It says a lot more than that.

 

[Yaarel]

You need to read the Sage Advice again. It says a lot more than that.

Heh, to indulge you. I will read Sage Advice again.

My interlinear comments are in italic.



Sage Advice
"
What happens if a druid wears metal armor?

The druid explodes.
Well, not actually.
[Humorous intent but actually adds to the confusion.]

Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield.
[Not in D&D 5e. In 5e there is no taboo.]

The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978).
[The D&D tradition has abandoned many unhelpful flavors and mechanics since 1978.]

The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization.
[This idea of a "taboo" is absent from the Players Handbook. Hypothetically interpolating a taboo into 5e, what remains unexplained is, why druids like attacking with metal but not defending with metal.]

Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor.
[Just like Wizards dont lack the ability to wear metal armor.]

They choose not to wear it.
[Which is why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with it.]

This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order.
[Different cultures have different mystical orders. Not every setting is Greyhawk.]

Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
[However, does a vegetarian like to attack with meat, but avoid defending with meat?]

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor,
[TYPICALLY! There are exceptions.]

and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it.
[The Druid is PROFICIENT with non-metal scale mail.]

If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.
[Your DM might not think that the setting is D&D 1e Greyhawk! Also, it is ok to break the taboo. Talk to your DM. Maybe your DM will give you proficiency with metal armor for free! Otherwise, you will need to get the proficiency from elsewhere.]

Each class has story elements mixed with its game features;
[However, there is no story in the Players Handbook to explain why Druids love metal weapons but not metal shields. Also, not every story is true in every setting, whether a regional setting or a world setting or a cosmological setting.]

the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others.
[Stories are important, so need to be coherent, and to avoid conflicting with proficiency rules.]

Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design.
[Except, in 5e, there is zero "taboo" in the Druid story. Moreover, the Druid is an earth elementalist who loves metal.]

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.
[There is no Druid story in the Players handbook concerning the use of metal armor!]

As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies,
[Yes, exactly. Follow the proficiency rules that are in the Players Handbook! Get the proficiency from somewhere else.]

you’re not going to break anything in the game system,
[Obviously.]

but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
[But there is no story in the Druid class description!!! Most 5e DMs today are not creating a 1e Greyhawk world for their campaigns.]

[Get the metal armor proficiency. Remain 100% in agreement with the stories in the Druid class description!]

[Here is a story. Some Druids love the element of earth! Including metal! And want to be defended by it. There is no contradiction with the Players Handbook.]



[Even if the players want the D&D 1e setting flavor that Sage Advice mentions. It only explains why the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. A player remains free to gain this proficiency from any other source that grants it.]

"



As I said earlier, the Sage Advice explains little. But it suggests some of the reasoning for why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with metal armor. At the same time, to gain the metal armor proficiency from somewhere else is legal, and is how 5e rules work, and agrees with all of the flavors that are in the stories in the Druid class description.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly, I really feel that a druid would rather rip their own arms off than wear something unnatural like metal limbs. Now, if those prosthetic limbs were made of wood, or even bone or horn, yeah, sure they wear them.

And yes, a druid could be borged or something thanks to Ravenloftian horrors (see: Ahmi Vanjuko from the second Ravenloft MC appendix), but that's something done to the druid, not the druid's choice. And no DM who is also a decent person worth playing with is going to force something like that on a PC in order to make them lose abilities.

I will never grok where this mindset toward Druids even comes from.

Like…they commonly use scimitars and sickles. And leather armor. And cloth clothing.

Druids aren’t inherently repulsed by anything man made.

And where does this wild notion that forging somehow makes something unnatural!?

How does any of this stuff make sense to any of you!?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For clarity, nowhere does it say (to my knowledge) that druid don’t like metal, or are allergic to it. Only that they will not wear armor (and shields) made of metal.

they are perfectly happy fighting with their steel scimitar, sporting their silver pendant, and use their golden sickle. But some reasons that are stated but not explained, the will not wear armor made of it. They won’t combust if they sit on the iron throne (unless they cast heat metal on it beforehand) and may still enter the gate even if they have to push an forged iron.

i believe the idea is that plate armor is a symbol of «modern» and «technologically advanced» civilisation, and Gygax imagined the druid as a symbol of an ancient, perhaps even antiquated civilisation. Unlike the cleric that was a chassis for priests of different religions, the druid IS a religion with it’s own philosophy and, apparently, taboos.

But that then needs to be explained, in order for the “rule” to be remotely comprehensible. What is the actual nature of the taboo? So far as I know, Druids don’t have prophets and sacred texts, they are the pre-Roman European pagan priests, whose only writing is in magical staves and runes, who memorize complex bodies of law and religious rites, so where does the taboo come from and how is it universal? Do the spirits of the land tell druids not to cover themselves in metal?

The game does not present Druids as any sort of specific religion. The published worlds have Druid orders that are diametrically opposed to eachother, and not just in Eberron.

it’s a weird bit of text that exists to make grogs slip through the PHB and feel at home due to familiar little rules idiosyncrasies.

 

[Undrave]

I would also note that in 1500 posts it has not yet been discussed whether everyone is using the same definition of the word "rule". Arguing about whether or not something meets a definition without first establishing that definition seems doomed to be inherently unresolvable.

From my standpoint it seems highly likely that everyone who has expressed an opinion on whether or not it's a rule is simultaneously correct, under whatever definition of "rule" they happen to be using.

There is different kinds of rules. You got mechanical rules, AKA rules of the game, and narrative rules, AKA rules of the world.

Mechanical rules are usually used to express the rules of the world, but they can be arbitrary to simply evoke a specific theme or flavor. Sometimes a mechanical rule gets a fluff explanation after the fact, sometimes a fluff explanation gets a rule afterward. Unarmored defense was given to the Barbarian so they can stay shirtless and not be hit all the time. It reinforces the theme and it explains a piece of the fluff. A player can break a rule and that would be cheating in our world.

But you also have rules IN UNIVERSE. Like the law of a town your characters visit. If the character choose, of their own free will, to break the law of the town, then the town will want to deal out justice. The player is not breaking any rule of the game, just because the character is.

I would also argue that there are, in a game, meta rules. Rules that exist for the same of understanding rules. Keywords, for exemple, are a meta rule. Same as using icons to represent certain mechanics. Those meta rules also extend into game design. It's not something that's easy to list out, but there are principles to adhere to if you want to make the rules of your game understandable and easy to learn. One of which is consistency: things that are worded the same mean the same thing and things that are worded using other words mean another thing.

"Will not wear metal armor" break those game design principles. It doesn't follow 5e's meta rules of how rules are expressed.

D&D is generally described as a "do anything you want!" game where the limit is your imagination, and it is true... but the game offers you multiple types of resolution mechanics and suggest you either try to resolve situations through those mechanic, or use them as inspiration for your own solutions. Despite placing limits on what you can and can't do, 5e's rules are usually expressed in a permissive format: "You can do X", "You do X to do Y", "You can do X if you do Y", "You can cast X", "You know how to use X". They do not list what you cannot do, and will usually list what happens if you try to do something you have not been granted permission to do (say, use armor or weapons without proficiency).

In fact, I don't know ANY modern game, RPG or board games, that uses "Will not" in its rule text outside describing the way an NPC would act, usually in regard to what a PC can ask them to do, or an automata in a solo mode board game. An NPC, not a player, because human players are assumed to have free will and that free will extends to their characters.

When rules of the universe, rules that can be broken (not gravity or the innate capabilities of a dragon) mind you, are explained, they ALWAYS include some kind of in-universe consequences, and sometimes they'll even include explanations of why things are as they are. Because the basic mechanical rule of D&D is that you can try to do 'anything you want' and all the other rules exist to see if you achieve your goal or not. You character CAN break the law of the town by robbing them blind - D&D assumes as a default that PCs have free will - but the consequences are narrative and not mechanical.

"Will not wear metal armor" also break with that concept, in that it offers no consequences, no lore reason why things are as they are, no elaboration.

"Will not wear metal armor" breaks the meta rules of 5e. It is not formulated or formaed like either a mechanical rule or a in-universe rule, as a result it does not function as a rule as is. It cannot be, for me at least, a rule of any kind. It is, at best, a programming mistake that needs to be patched to work properly and DMs are left to their our devices, should it come up, to solve this glitch.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, to indulge you. I will read Sage Advice again.

My interlinear comments are in italic.



Sage Advice
"
What happens if a druid wears metal armor?

The druid explodes.
Well, not actually.
[Humorous intent but actually adds to the confusion.]

Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield.
[Not in D&D 5e. In 5e there is no taboo.]

The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978).
[The D&D tradition has abandoned many unhelpful flavors and mechanics since 1978.]

The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization.
[This idea of a "taboo" is absent from the Players Handbook. Hypothetically interpolating a taboo into 5e, what remains unexplained is, why druids like attacking with metal but not defending with metal.]

Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor.
[Just like Wizards dont lack the ability to wear metal armor.]

They choose not to wear it.
[Which is why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with it.]

This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order.
[Different cultures have different mystical orders. Not every setting is Greyhawk.]

Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
[However, does a vegetarian like to attack with meat, but avoid defending with meat?]

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor,
[TYPICALLY! There are exceptions.]

and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it.
[The Druid is PROFICIENT with non-metal scale mail.]

If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.
[Your setting might not be 1e Greyhawk! Also, it is ok to break the taboo. Also, get the proficiency from elsewhere.]

Each class has story elements mixed with its game features;
[However, there is no story in the Players Handbook to explain why Druids love metal weapons but not metal shields. Also, not every story is true in every setting, whether a regional setting or a world setting or a cosmological setting.]

the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others.
[Stories are important, so need to be coherent, and to avoid conflicting with proficiency rules.]

Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design.
[Except, in 5e, there is zero "taboo" in the Druid the story. Moreover, the Druid is an earth elementalist.]

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.
[There is no Druid story in the Players handbook concerning the use of metal armor!]

As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies,
[Yes, exactly. Follow the proficiency rules that are in the Players Handbook! Get the proficiency from somewhere else.]

you’re not going to break anything in the game system,
[Obviously.]

but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
[But there is no story in the Druid class description!!!]

[Get the metal armor proficiency. Remain 100% in agreement with the stories in the Druid class description!]

[Here is a story. Some Druids love the element of earth! Including metal! And want to be defended by it. There is no contradiction with the Players Handbook.]



[Even if the players want the D&D 1e setting flavor that Sage Advice mentions. It only explains why the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. A character is free to gain this proficiency from any other source that grants it.]

"


As I said earlier, the Sage Advice explains little. But it suggest some of the reasoning for why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with metal armor. However. Gaining the metal armor proficiency from somewhere else is how the rules work, and is ok.

So your entire argument is that the Sage Advice, which is 5e, is not 5e and that the designers are lying to you when they are clarifying the PHB, not creating new information?

 

[Yaarel]

So your entire argument is that the Sage Advice, which is 5e, is not 5e and that the designers are lying to you when they are clarifying the PHB, not creating new information?

Sage Advice sometimes explains some of the rationale that went into a design decision.

Here, it explains why the Druid class doesnt grant metal armor proficiency. The designers had the D&D 1e Greyhawk setting in mind.

At the same time, the 5e Druid player can still get this metal armor proficiency from any source that grants it.