D&D 5E (2014) Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[loverdrive]

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

You've never hanged out with new age psychonauts? Damn, now I envy you!

 

[Yaarel]

Yep. A strong RP tool that can be broken if the PC thinks it's necessary.

Also, in the case of a taboo, the player can choose whether they want that Ideal or Flaw, or choose some other Ideal or Flaw.

 

[mrpopstar]

A "taboo" is something like an Ideal or Flaw in the personality section.

YES!

 

[mrpopstar]

Also, in the case of a taboo, the player can choose whether they want that Ideal or Flaw, or choose some other Ideal or Flaw.

“I've broken the taboos of my faith" is something clearly exploitable. Perfect example of a great flaw!

 

[Yaarel]

“I've broken the taboos of my faith" is something clearly exploitable. Perfect example of a great flaw!

Likewise, the Warlock patron and the Cleric deity are a Bond.

 

[mrpopstar]

Likewise, the Warlock patron and the Cleric deity are a Bond.

While these bonds are obvious, and valid, I would press for at least one connection to a person, place, or event that exists in the material realm (were I the Dungeon Master). Anything that ties the character to something outside of themselves.

Edit: Formatting.​

 

[mrpopstar]

An ideal for the metal armor-wearing druid might be "I stand for every priest's right to practice faith in his own way."

I always ask players which hill their character would die on if they're struggling to come up with an ideal. This fits the bill!

 

[Maxperson]

Also, in the case of a taboo, the player can choose whether they want that Ideal or Flaw, or choose some other Ideal or Flaw.

Not always. Sometimes it's chosen for you. Druids are a good example of that. We know for 100% certain that they have the taboo that they will not wear metal armor. The designers have said this straight out. People can come up with all the excuses and justifications they want for how it's not really a taboo in 5e, but none of those can overturn the undeniable fact that is spelled out explicitly in the Sage Advice, which is talking directly about the "will not wear metal armor" quote in the PHB.

 

[mrpopstar]

Not always. Sometimes it's chosen for you. Druids are a good example of that. We know for 100% certain that they have the taboo that they will not wear metal armor. The designers have said this straight out. People can come up with all the excuses and justifications they want for how it's not really a taboo in 5e, but none of those can overturn the undeniable fact that is spelled out explicitly in the Sage Advice, which is talking directly about the "will not wear metal armor" quote in the PHB.

True that it's prescribed.

 

[Yaarel]

While these bonds are obvious, and valid, I would press for at least one connection to a person, place, or event that exists in the material realm (were I the Dungeon Master). Anything that ties the character to something outside of themselves.

Edit: Formatting.​

Yes!

I want the Bond section to split into Persons, Places, and Things.

Persons would include Warlock patron when an archfey, or a Cleric cosmic force when a deity. A family member: sibling, parent, significant other, close friend. Also, a pet is a person when the relationship is important.

Places are of childhoods, current school (during apprentice tier levels 1 to 4), sacred community, favorite hideout, etcetera.

Things are a favorite magic item, a family heirloom, a Cleric cosmic force when light or elemental fire.

And so on.

When I create my own character sheets, I have space for each: Persons, Places, and Things.