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

[Chaosmancer]

The class also says nothing about « too civilised ». The only thing the class says is not to wear a metal armor or shield.

That is the reasoning people have given me in this thread.

does it make sense? It doesn’t have to; it’s a religious interdiction. Or perhaps it would make sense if we had the whole picture, but we don’t. I’m glad we don’t , and that’s probably where we differ the most. I’m ok with that kind of responsibilities falling into the DM.

Religions make internal sense. Pretty much always. I don't think I have ever come across a religious belief that in the full context of where that belief came from, doesn't make sense. I really hate this defense that "it is a religion, it doesn't have to make sense". That is just wrong.

And, you acknowledge "maybe it would make sense in the whole picture" but the issue is... anything you tell me in the whole picture, for why a druid can't use a metal shield would be setting specific. It would have to be. And, sure a DM could try and make it make sense... but why should they? Why should it be the DM's responsibility to force a player to conform to religious beliefs they didn't agree to and then prevent them from breaking those beliefs. Something that is done no where else in the game.

 

[Laurefindel]

Sure, but let me ask you this.

Could they choose to eat pork/cow if they were in a starvation scenario? It would break their taboos, but could they choose to do it? Yes.

Can a druid, under any circumstances pick up and use a metal shield? We are told no.

And, you point out something that I said a while back. You mention they choose not to despite "where food hygiene is strict and fridges are plentiful". Back when the taboo was made, it made sense, because these things were not true.

Did it EVER make sense, in-universe, to say that a metal sword is fine, but a metal shield is a sign of civilization? No. It really doesn't make any sense at all. There is no reason for this belief to have come about in the first place.

Very true; most taboos probably have sensible origins. One can assume that the no metal armor thing had one too at one point in history. It may simply be held as a defining tradition now.

as for my Catholic/Muslim/Jew/Hindu friends, they would have a choice to make if confronted with starvation. Like the Mandalorean had to do when he allowed his face to be seen in order to preserve the integrity of the mission.

What is missing in the whole druid and metal armor thing is a consequences for breaking the taboo that would allow players to make important choice about their character. What would they sacrifice to dress as a (metal clad ) soldier in order to preserve the integrity of the mission? Or as you said, wearing a ceremonial shield during a coronation.

that’s the most (IMHO) disappointing part of this whole druid-and-metal-armor mess.

 

[Laurefindel]

Religions make internal sense. Pretty much always. I don't think I have ever come across a religious belief that in the full context of where that belief came from, doesn't make sense. I really hate this defense that "it is a religion, it doesn't have to make sense". That is just wrong.

You are absolutely right there. I take back by statement that was actually pretty offensive.

nevertheless, taboos don’t always make immediate sense from an outsider point of view. The Druidic taboo is no different; I’m sure it would make complete sense in the internal logic of this religious practice.

 

[J.Quondam]

Interestingly, much of the sparring in this thread seems to boil down to a game-world taboo against wearing armor VS a real-world taboo against depriving a player of control of their character.

 

[Oofta]

Interestingly, much of the sparring in this thread seems to boil down to a game-world taboo against wearing armor VS a real-world taboo against depriving a player of control of their character.

When it comes to character control, I have two problems. First, the player decided to run a druid knowing the rule.

Second, I have a no evil PC policy. Does that cause the same problem? I mean I don't stop someone from having their PC committing evil acts but that PC will become an NPC if they go through with it after a warning. It would be the same with a druid. They can always choose to wear metal armor but they would no longer be a druid if I'm DM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Should a Barbarian have to fight and kill the chieftain of their tribe to reach level 11? It would make for a good story, but would that be a fair requirement? Classes are different, so why shouldn't we force every single barbarian into the same story? Maybe Paladins need to spend a year on sabbatical, serving their local temple before they are given their Divine Health feature. Classes are different right? So it would be completely fair to deny a paladin a class feature if they can't devote a full year to serving their church.

I'm not talking about class features though. I'm not talking about spells. I'm talking about gear. So maybe Rogues are only allowed to use what they steal. Or maybe a fighter has to kill someone and taken their gear to use it. That would be fair right? Because classes are different?

Those do not seem terribly well considered houserules to me, but if you like them go for it!

Or is that just an excuse? Because, oddly enough, there is only a single class that seems to require a special quest to get their mundane gear that they are proficient in.

So what. Only single class can buy more spells with money.

Are you saying you would allow a druid to have half-plate by level 3? In that case at least two. My paladin I spoke about earlier had three... yeah, most of my characters have had about three sets of armor.

So you don't think you will fight tree enemies that provide armour materials over the entire campaign?

But ultimately this whole buying/hunting thing isn't a big deal. If you want make things buyable go ahead. You can make magic items buyable too if you want. These sort of things just makes gear acquisition more boring in my book.

I think I talked about that. Like, specifically. Like when I said this that you had to specifically delete "I guess you could give them +2 crystal half-plate that conveys lightning resistance... but that's a homebrew item. And even then, you'd have to be pretty careful, because someone else might take that item instead."

Sure. And the barbarian could take the holy Avenger instead of giving it to the paladin.

No, they can use medium armor, some people just don't allow them to use metal and then make them jump through hoops to use medium armor made out of something else.

By 'some people' you mean the rules.

That isn't a new rule. That isn't a new type of armor. So why are you acting like it is?

The rule is that they don't use metal armour. The non-metallic medium, armours in the rules are hide, dragonscale armour and possible other magical medium armours with 'strange material' trait. That is what they are intended to wear according RAW. Crawford says this: "A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it." That's the design intent.

Giving them anything more is extra. And sure, it is not gonna break the game, but it is not something you're automatically entitled to and no unfairness is being done if you don't get optional homebrewed extra buffs.

It isn't a strawman, because you never made the argument that I am talking about. All I was pointing out is that you have an equal amount of support for druids not using guns as a different DM would have for them using guns.

Sure. That's why I said 'I wouldn't let them use guns.'

And, even if, even if they weren't given proficiency... they can still choose to pick them up and use them. They just won't be proficient.

But, if a Druid tried to pick up a metal shield, you would cite the rules telling them that their character would choose not to take that action. And if they asked why, you might point to the idea that metal shields represent too much civilization... where no such restriction exists for literally any other form of civilization. Maybe guns are incredibly uncommon. Are swords? Are swords any less of a sign of civilization, a tool whose sole purpose is killing other humans, and only used in warfare which only really exists in the terms of civilization? And yet, druids can choose to pick up a sword.

Actually, do you now why a druid can even use a scimitar? This was part of Gygax's reasoning. Because they are like sickles. And why did they use sickles? Because of a poorly researched a-historical paper that connected Druids to crescent-shaped tools. Specifically Golden Sickles.

Actually, since I'm on a bit about ahistorical sources used to make Druids, you know what makes me the most utterly baffled by this whole "anti-civilization" angle? Real druids, which I know we are talking about DnD, but real druids. Our best evidence has them as sages, historians, Judges, doctors... they were not just holy people but the source of things like laws, medicine and the oral history. You know, Civilization.

So a druid who doesn't reject civilization should be... a perfectly valid concept.

D&D druid is not historical druid, it is it's own archetype. One which you don't get. This is like the halfling thread where you simply don't get a thematic trope try to 'prove' it is bad trope by dissecting trivialities. Please stop, I don't care.

And the only one you've put forth is "wizards can't heal" which turned out to be wrong.

So how well you think a wizard as the party's healer would work?

But, let's dig into this idea of the "archetype" a little bit. Do all rogues need to be thieves? Do all rogues need to even be greedy? What exactly is the single defining archetype and theme that combines all rogues into a single cohesive unit? Or, would it be more accurate to think that the class has multiple different themes and archetypes loosely bundled together?

Heck, even a class that seems like it is a single unit really isn't. The Paladin has a lot of themes in it. Multiple different ways to approach it.

And so do druids. But this is like wanting to monks wear armour and use great axes. I'd also note that the classes derived from original four classes (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Cleric) tend to be conceptually broader than ones that diverged from them later.

You are the one trying to compare a druid with an AC of 19 to the Twilight Cleric.

No I'm not. I merely cited that as reason why I may not completely trust Crawford's assessments on balance.

No. They have access to all medium armor. They choose (if the DM decided to mind control them) to only use non-metal medium armor. Giving them access to non-metal medium armor that they are supposed to be proficient in anyways isn't a buff.

As I noted already earlier this simply isn't true. RAW they have access to hide, dragonscale and magical armours with strange material quirk. That's it. Anything more is a buff.

Do you think making wooden shields available is buffing the Druid? It is the same restriction, in the same place, do you think we've unfairly buffed the druid by allowing them to use wooden shields? If not, what makes giving the bone half-plate suddenly a buff?

Wooden shields already exist and druids can already use them. So obviously it is not a buff.

Why does it need to be a trade-off? Metal shields aren't a trade-off from wooden shields aren't a trade-off from turtle shell shields. They are all shields, they all give +2 AC. You can have "the best of both worlds" with a wooden shield, but it is unacceptable to have it with bone half-plate? Why?

Why is one okay and the other an unfair buff that unbalances the game?

Heat metal is far more powerful against armour, as you cant just drop it.

But sure, if you want a world where primary armour material is bone, go for it. It sounds certainly cool, it just isn't what most D&D setting traditionally are, nor it is even remotely realistic but then again its D&D.

But it also is a buff for druids as they gain armours that are better than ones they have normally access to. Even my reduced AC versions are a buff, just one that still keeps the material difference mattering a little bit.

So, if I pretend they wrote the class differently to not include the proficiency they have, then I can see them as being better than you allow them to be?

No. That is what they effectively wrote. That is what the end result of the words on the paper is.

How about this, if they wanted it to be light armor and hide... that's what they would have written. They didn't, because they wanted Druids to use medium armor. Pretty simple.

Because then druids could not have worn dragonscale and other potential magical armours made of dead creatures and they would have had to list every such item individually. They just wrote it in manner that doesn't take a lot of space.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interestingly, much of the sparring in this thread seems to boil down to a game-world taboo against wearing armor VS a real-world taboo against depriving a player of control of their character.

Well, most people here seem to agree that making the limitation consequence based would be better. So for example if druids couldn't cast spells or wildshape while wearing metal, this conflict wouldn't exist.

 

[Maxperson]

Fair, but that balance decision no longer exists.

That's true. At this point it's class story tradition and nothing more.

 

[J.Quondam]

When it comes to character control, I have two problems. First, the player decided to run a druid knowing the rule.

Second, I have a no evil PC policy. Does that cause the same problem? I mean I don't stop someone from having their PC committing evil acts but that PC will become an NPC if they go through with it after a warning. It would be the same with a druid. They can always choose to wear metal armor but they would no longer be a druid if I'm DM.

I mean, we've already had this conversation, right?

(1) First, yes: the player chose the druid character knowing about metal restrictions. Just like a paladin player understands oaths, or monk players understand armor restrictions. Fine, so what? I mean, if your table has some mechanism to completely avoid all situations where a PC might rationally be expected to confront that choice, that's great! Just avoid the situation, avoid the rule, avoid the one single place in the game where RAW yoinks agency from the player so it never comes up. That can be done, as someone said, by GM fiat ("poof, the shield is now wooden!"); or, as you yourself said, by defining a red line that shall not be crossed. Cool! A little unsatisfying, in my opinion, but those do work.

(2) Second, no, your "no evil" policy does NOT violate player agency, because you DO allow the player to make the choice based on the threat of consequences. Repeat: your table rule has consequences. CONSEQUENCES. See, it's all good, because your player retains agency over the character, and you've defined CONSEQUNCES. The druid armor dumbassery (as specifically worded in the book with the word "will not") doesn't allow the player to choose that course of action for their character, nor does it offer any in-game consequences of such an action or rationales to prevent the action. So the ONLY way to deal with it as perfect, unsullied RAW is to either (a) avoid such situations entirely (as in 1 above) or else (b) rob the player of their agency in that one tiny little situation in the whole game and say "Nope, you won't do that."

Alternatively, of course, one could go ever so slightly outside RAW, and just do what any normal GM would do anyway, which is: a quick talk with the player to get on the same page, make a ruling for and in-game consequence and/or preventative measure, and then keep on playing!

 

[Maxperson]

Very true; most taboos probably have sensible origins. One can assume that the no metal armor thing had one too at one point in history. It may simply be held as a defining tradition now.

as for my Catholic/Muslim/Jew/Hindu friends, they would have a choice to make if confronted with starvation. Like the Mandalorean had to do when he allowed his face to be seen in order to preserve the integrity of the mission.

Yep. It's a good thing he didn't have the kind of DM who would have accused of cheating and told him no he couldn't do it. Instead he was allowed to struggle with it and eventually decide to show his face.

What is missing in the whole druid and metal armor thing is a consequences for breaking the taboo that would allow players to make important choice about their character. What would they sacrifice to dress as a (metal clad ) soldier in order to preserve the integrity of the mission? Or as you said, wearing a ceremonial shield during a coronation.

that’s the most (IMHO) disappointing part of this whole druid-and-metal-armor mess.

That's personal to the table, though. Some DMs might want a mechanical lose your abilities while wearing it penalty. Others might place in-fiction consequences like being ostracized. And there will also be some who will be happy to see that it was an internal struggle for the character to overcome and just let it go at that. I don't think the game needs to spell it out for us.