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

[Yaarel]

This whole stupid thread would have been way better if they hadn't placed a random piece of fluff into the RULE section.

If they didn't want Druid to wear half-plates they should have just limited their proficiencies instead of this BS half-baked solution that is not written like a rule at all.

Exactly.

I take it as a rule, but it isnt written the way rules are. There is nothing like this weird wording anywhere else in D&D.

Likewise, it isnt a flavor, written the way narrative descriptions are.

It is bad design. It causes confusions and unfortunate consequences that are bad for the D&D game.

This word "will", as you say, is "half-baked".

It is half-asked.

 

[Undrave]

I take it as a rule, but it isnt written the way rules are. There is nothing like this weird wording anywhere else in D&D.

I'd be hard pressed to find a game, ANY sort of game, in the last 40 years that has a "Player will not" formulation. It's bad rule writing and sounds like amateur hour.

 

[Maxperson]

Likewise the mountain dwarf armor-wearing racial trait breaks the Druid class proficiencies.

Not necessarily. They are both specific features, so it's up to the DM. However, a rule for an entire race is more general in my opinion than a taboo for one single class, so I would not allow that more general specific rule to trump the druid(IF the druid taboo was a rule, which it isn't).

There is just no room for a house rule that pretends a Druid neva eva eva wears metal.

We agree about that much. Druids have had the choice to put on metal armor and take the consequences since 1e.

The house rule that unconditionally forbids metal armor under any circumstance is both ridiculous and an evil.

Um, no. Calling the druid taboo evil belittles true evil and diminishes the horror of those who have experienced it.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd be hard pressed to find a game, ANY sort of game, in the last 40 years that has a "Player will not" formulation. It's bad rule writing and sounds like amateur hour.

I can understand why they put it there, but they should have done a better job with the wording. It needed to be in a place where everyone would see it, so it had to be in the rules section, and since it deals with wearing armor, that location made the most sense.

 

[Yaarel]

Um, no. Calling the druid taboo evil belittles true evil and diminishes the horror of those who have experienced it.

An evil can be big or small.

To make reallife players uncomfortable because the game is pushing a very specific religious opinion, is absolutely an evil. Even if a small one.

 

[Yaarel]

The recent discussions about minority ethnic groups needing to feel comfortable when playing D&D and having control over their own player character concepts, includes ethnic groups with minority religions. Players must be able to decide for themselves which religious tropes make sense to them or not.

Every player needs to feel comfortable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Saying, "My female character can be strong," and, "My cosmic force Cleric character doesnt worship gods", is not so different from, "My Druid learned magic from earth elementals, and wears metal armor."

One of these things is not like the others.

Hint: it is the first one. A game not allowing that would be an actual problem.

 

[Maxperson]

An evil can be big or small.

Still no. A rule prohibiting something is just not evil.

To make reallife players uncomfortable because the game is pushing a very specific religious opinion, is absolutely an evil. Even if a small one.

Religion is not a topic to be discussed here. In general, though, simply making someone uncomfortable is not an evil. Evil is specifically something profoundly immoral or wicked.

 

[Maxperson]

One of these things is not like the others.

Hint: it is the first one. A game not allowing that would be an actual problem.

Yep. Even Gary Gygax rethought it.

"Your alternation doesn't disturb me in the least. Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game.

Cheerio,
Gary"

We certainly ignored it back in 1e.

 

[Yaarel]

Still no. A rule prohibiting something is just not evil.

A rule that makes a reallife player uncomfortable because it mischaracterizes their identity, whether gender or ethnicity, is an evil.