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

[Laurefindel]

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.

From what I remember, AD&D (1e and 2e, never player with older rulesets) were full of "aren't allowed to do X" and "cannot do X because they refuse to do it" for mechanical reasons rationalised as fluff. Even if "will not" wasn't use specifically (I'd have to delve into it to verify), it comes to the same: character cannot do X because that's not how they do it, period. Re: druid and specific weapons list and metal armor taboo, cleric prohibited from using slashing/piercing weapons because they don't want to shed blood, paladins and their code, rangers who won't store treasure they cannot carry with them etc.

In other systems, d6 Star Wars's Wookies having claws to climb but never using them in combat comes to mind, and I'm sure I could find many other instances.

The difference is that in most of these case, there is a consequence for failing to comply. You're a ranger and commit an evil act? Welcome to fighterhood for the rest of your career! You're a cleric and used a sword for legitimate defense? Ask your DM because it doesn't say otherwise. You're a Wookie and used your claws? You're... dishonored, I guess

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rules absolutely do not say that. The basic description of what half-plate is assumes metal, but it also does not assume a helmet or anything else.

For example, Faulds are typically worn with breastplates, but the breastplate itself doesn't describe them. If I have a character wearing a breastplate and faulds... are they not wearing breastplate? Do the "rules" mean that if the leather wasn't boiled in oil it can't be used for leather armor?

None of that section is the "rules". Acting like it is is untenable. It would be the same as saying that you can't buy fishing tackle that has: a wooden rod, gut line, corkwood bobbers, bone hooks, stone sinkers, velvet lures and narrow netting, Because "THE RULES" state that is contains: a wooden rod, silk line, corkwood bobbers, steel hooks, lead sinkers, velvet lures and narrow netting.

No, that isn't rules, that is just a general description of what the items are. The rules for half-plate do not require them to be metal.

Are there rules that interact with your armour having or not having faulds or the material of your fishing line? If armour material wasn't meant to matter, then there would be no rules that refer it. But there are.

 

[Maxperson]

So following the rules of the game and expecting players to do the same (or face consequences as determined by the DM) is evil?

Hey! Someone brought us into agreement about something.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, it was put into the rule section because it was intended to be a rule? Which Crawford affirmed in Sage Advice? Which like any rule can be ignored?

I dunno, just kind of spit-balling here.

 

[Oofta]

No, he was talking about the rule itself and how it is written to remove agency. Not anything else you are trying to jump onto.

If you feel I have violated the forum's policies feel free to report it. Until then, you do not get to tell me when I can or cannot post.

 

[Maxperson]

No, he was talking about the rule itself and how it is written to remove agency. Not anything else you are trying to jump onto.

That's not evil, either.

 

[Maxperson]

Or maybe, just maybe, it was put into the rule section because it was intended to be a rule? Which Crawford affirmed in Sage Advice?

There was no affirmation of a rule in the sage advice. "Talk to your DM" applies to lore and rules alike, so it's not anything specifically rule affirming.

 

[Oofta]

There was no affirmation of a rule in the sage advice. "Talk to your DM" applies to lore and rules alike, so it's not anything specifically rule affirming.

All I can say is that we read the following paragraph differently.

... Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. 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 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. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order.​

​

Although personally I still prefer that they explode.

 

[Maxperson]

All I can say is that we read the following paragraph differently.

... Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. 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 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. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order.​

That paragraph is all about lore and taboo and having the choice, not rules.

Although personally I still prefer that they explode.

That would certainly be more entertaining for the BBEGs.

 

[Yaarel]

So following the rules of the game and expecting players to do the same (or face consequences as determined by the DM) is evil?

It can be inappropriate.

For example. The rules say that the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. I dont care. Different classes and archetypes offer different armor proficiencies. If I have a character concept that wants to wear such armor, then my character can do it by various means. Including a feat.

However, if there were a nonsensical houserule that made my character concept impossible, because the houserule says, my character would never choose to be such a concept. That starts getting weird and intrusive. And uncomfortable.

When this nonsensical houserule that harms player agency is because of someone elses opinion about how religions work, then the houserule starts crossing the line.