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

[J.Quondam]

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.

Absolutely. Just a little official clarification on the effect of the action would fix so much. But Sage Advice seems stubbornly resistant to offering a solid clarification, and seems content with just shutting down the action entirely.

Edit: I'm still suspicious that this rule is, in fact, nothing more than an editorial oversight!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Apples and oranges. When I choose to play a druid, I choose to accept the in-fiction taboo against wearing armor. That's the only thing affecting my decision to wear armor or not. Nothing else. If a table has a no evil policy and I accept that, I'm bound by that house rule. If you enact a house rule stating that in no way can I ever even attempt to put on metal armor as a druid and I accept that and make the druid anyway, then I would be similarly bound. No such rule exists in RAW, though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

(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."

I have to disagree with this. 'Your character becomes a NPC' is a meta reason, and is not really much differnt from 'the rules say no'. Both certainly violate the player agency, the player cannot declare an action and keep playing.

And I definitely think having such policy to effectively ban certain actions is fine. Not allowing things that would seriously violate the theme of the game or possibly be distasteful to the actual people at the table is good reason to limit the player agency. Granted, druid armour probably doesn't qualify here, some sort of 'no evil' rule more likely would.

 

[Oofta]

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

(1) First, yes: the player chose the druid character knowing about metal restrictions. And if your table has some mechanism to completely avoid all situations where a PC might rationally be expected to confront that choice. 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!

I would never tell a player they can't do something unless it's physically impossible. If a player has their druid put on metal armor they are no longer a druid because druids will not wear metal armor.

But it will be their choice. Exactly the same as my no evil policy.

 

[Maxperson]

I would never tell a player they can't do something unless it's physically impossible. If a player has their druid put on metal armor they are no longer a druid because druids will not wear metal armor.

That has never in the history of the game been a penalty for druids wearing armor. Not in 1e. Not in 2e. Not in 3e. Not in 4e. And not in 5e. That's a rather draconian ruling for the infraction of the taboo. And it's one that flies directly in the face of the Sage Advice which says to treat it like being a vegetarian. A vegetarian who feels the need to eat meat as an exception of the vegetarian taboo for some important reason does not cease to be a vegetarian.

 

[J.Quondam]

I would never tell a player they can't do something unless it's physically impossible. If a player has their druid put on metal armor they are no longer a druid because druids will not wear metal armor.

But it will be their choice. Exactly the same as my no evil policy.

I completely understand that. A serious consequence for what your table deems a serious act. I suspect a lot of tables might work it similarly.
It's not perfectly strict RAW, but it's a superior way to run it.

 

[J.Quondam]

I have to disagree with this. 'Your character become an NPC' is a meta reason, and is not really much differnt from 'the rules say no'. Both certainly violate the player agency, the player cannot declare an action and keep playing.

And I definitely think having such policy to effectively ban certain actions is fine. Not allowing things that would seriously violate the theme of the game or possibly be distasteful to the actual people at the table is good reason to limit the player agency. Granted, druid armour probably doesn't qualify here, some sort of 'no evil' rule more likely would.

Fair point. There certainly is a genuine distinction between the table's social contract and the rules of the game. When I referred to the "red line" in the previous part of the that post you quoted, that's sort of what I was getting at. In fact, it's a point that @Oofta helped me grok about 47,000 posts ago.

 

[Oofta]

Apples and oranges. When I choose to play a druid, I choose to accept the in-fiction taboo against wearing armor. That's the only thing affecting my decision to wear armor or not. Nothing else. If a table has a no evil policy and I accept that, I'm bound by that house rule. If you enact a house rule stating that in no way can I ever even attempt to put on metal armor as a druid and I accept that and make the druid anyway, then I would be similarly bound. No such rule exists in RAW, though.

If you choose to play in my campaign you choose to not play evil PCs. Same as deciding to play a druid means they will not wear metal armor. I don't see a difference. The player is in total control of their PC which includes consequences.

The fact that you will not accept a clear rule is not something I'm going to discuss further.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Slight issue: dragonscale is a magical armor. A very rare magical armor that requires attunement, in fact.

Which means that for a druid to obtain this sort of armor, they have to either spend a boatload of gold (assuming that can find someone who sells it), find a suit of armor, or kill a dragon, skin it, and get someone to make the armor. Which could take months, if the DM insists that NPC magic item crafters take as long as PC crafters do.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why, though? By what measure is it more correct for the game to support themes other than the themes core to the Dungeons & Dragons experience? What obligation or duty does the game have in that regard?

If you're not going to, then stop billing the game as one of imagination, creativity and expression and instead as The Game of Doing What We Tell You To.