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

[Faolyn]

I view it much like the self destruct they used now and then on Star Trek. I mean, just imagine the scene with Bob's PC the druid:

DM: Okay, the entire rest of the party is down, the Balrog and his minions surround you. Bob, what do you do?​

Bob: I'm pretty much tapped out of spells. Dang, sorry guys, it looks like I'm out of options. I look defiantly at the Balrog and shake my head as I proclaim "I didn't want to do this, but you leave me no choice" as I pull a metal buckler out of my backpack.​

Rest of the group: Don't do it, Bob, there has to be another way!​

DM: Okay, guys you're all dead or unconscious. No comments from the peanut gallery. The Balrog steps back in fear "You wouldn't dare!"​

Bob: "Step away now, or Yanthar's Castle will be remembered as Yanthar's Crater!"​

DM: The Balrog, eyes wide in terror "No ... don't do it ... we'll leave right away!"​

Bob: giving his best evil grin I reply "Not before you give in to my other demands" with an evil chuckle as the bracer edges ever more closely to his wrist.​

Meanwhile, the cleric thinks back to the stash of diamonds they have put away for raising the druid after just such a circumstance.

 

[Undrave]

Meanwhile I have no problem with the wording. I think it's clear, it's never been confusing to anyone I've ever played with in the real world.

Clarity or not, you have no problem with it being the ONLY rule of its kind in the entire game? The only rule to which the question on "Why?" can result in "Just because."? All other rules are either mechanical in reason

"Monks don't wear heavy armor"
"Why?"
"They don't have the proficiencies and they can't use their Martial Arts bonus while wearing armor."

"Clerics can't cast Fireball."
"Why?"
"It's not on their spell list."

Or has a narrative reason.

"Paladins of Devotion don't lie."
"Why?"
"It's part of the Oath they took when they got their powers."

For this one there is no answer.

"Druids won't wear metal armor."
"Why?"
"Because."

You don't think that doesn't stick out amongst everything else?

 

[Oofta]

Clarity or not, you have no problem with it being the ONLY rule of its kind in the entire game? The only rule to which the question on "Why?" can result in "Just because."? All other rules are either mechanical in reason

"Monks don't wear heavy armor"
"Why?"
"They don't have the proficiencies and they can't use their Martial Arts bonus while wearing armor."

"Clerics can't cast Fireball."
"Why?"
"It's not on their spell list."

Or has a narrative reason.

"Paladins of Devotion don't lie."
"Why?"
"It's part of the Oath they took when they got their powers."

For this one there is no answer.

"Druids won't wear metal armor."
"Why?"
"Because."

You don't think that doesn't stick out amongst everything else?

You're going to get the same answer no matter how many ways you ask it. I think the rule is clear, and no I don't have a problem with it. What happens if a druid does put on metal armor is up to the DM. As Sage Advice says "your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."

 

[Laurefindel]

So 30 years then. Still a long time in term of game design evolution.

True. That why I like to see the druid taboo not as a half-baked rule but as one that got reheated one too many times. It's baked through and through and then some, and is starting to lose whatever flavour it had left.

But regardless how stale it is as a concept, it's mostly the lack of stated consequence that makes it stand out. Otherwise I personally find it fine as a rule, located in the right section, worthy of being mentioned, and flexible enough to allow other medium armors that are not made of metal.

As it was said before, a 3-sentence textbox about "armors of unusual materials" would have eased the acquisition of non-metal armor, and a stated consequence would have solved the perception of player agency infringement (and would have provided players with potentially interesting roleplay opportunities).

 

[Undrave]

You're going to get the same answer no matter how many ways you ask it. I think the rule is clear, and no I don't have a problem with it. What happens if a druid does put on metal armor is up to the DM. As Sage Advice says "your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."

Then your tolerance for bad game design is greater than me, especially if you agree with the aesthetics being enforced (which, I reiterate, I have no problem with as a concept, fundamentally).

I think this is another case of 'Rulings not rules' and 'Naturalistic language' being used as an excuse to dropping inexperienced GMs into a wild situation without so much as a couple of exemples.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Then your tolerance for bad game design is greater than me, especially if you agree with the aesthetics being enforced (which, I reiterate, I have no problem with as a concept, fundamentally).

I think this is another case of 'Rulings not rules' and 'Naturalistic language' being used as an excuse to dropping inexperienced GMs into a wild situation without so much as a couple of exemples.

Just to reiterate the same thing that has been said for over 2000 comments-

"Bad game design" doesn't make it not a rule.

You have analogized this to a card game; D&D is not a card game. While some editions (such as 4) and other editions (such as 1/2) have greater or lesser reliance on "special terms," it has always been the case that the rules help enable play, but are not the entirety of play.

If you don't like this particular rule, then you are more than welcome to ignore it, or change it, or provide consequences for it.

But the idea that this rule is unclear is bizarre; at a certain point, the arguments in the 2000 comments+ are akin to a sophistic version of Zeno's Arrow Paradox; an attempt to tell people that despite what they see, the arrow never reaches its target.

And yet, it does.


(Look- the area of dispute has always been simple. It's not a "good rule" by your estimation because it's a throwback rule. You don't like the type of rule that it is, which is totally cool! But that doesn't mean that it's either not a rule, or impossible to understand. In fact, outside of the specialized area of INTERNET ARGUMENT FOR SPORT (ahem), I have never seen people at actual tables confused by the rule. But maybe I just play with very basic people?)

 

[Oofta]

Just to reiterate the same thing that has been said for over 2000 comments-

"Bad game design" doesn't make it not a rule.

You have analogized this to a card game; D&D is not a card game. While some editions (such as 4) and other editions (such as 1/2) have greater or lesser reliance on "special terms," it has always been the case that the rules help enable play, but are not the entirety of play.

If you don't like this particular rule, then you are more than welcome to ignore it, or change it, or provide consequences for it.

But the idea that this rule is unclear is bizarre; at a certain point, the arguments in the 2000 comments+ are akin to a sophistic version of Zeno's Arrow Paradox; an attempt to tell people that despite what they see, the arrow never reaches its target.

And yet, it does.


(Look- the area of dispute has always been simple. It's not a "good rule" by your estimation because it's a throwback rule. You don't like the type of rule that it is, which is totally cool! But that doesn't mean that it's either not a rule, or impossible to understand. In fact, outside of the specialized area of INTERNET ARGUMENT FOR SPORT (ahem), I have never seen people at actual tables confused by the rule. But maybe I just play with very basic people?)

I'm reminded of the saying "don't let perfection get in the way of good enough". I think the rule is fine, but you can never please everyone. Out of all the rules in D&D that don't always make a lot of sense if you look at them too long, this is just a really strange hill to die on.

 

[J.Quondam]

THE RULE IS A MISTAKE!
A MISTAKE IS NOT A RULE!
IT WILL* BE ERRATA'D OUT OF EXISTENCE!
FIGHT ME!


* No. In this statement, "will" does not constitute a violation of player agency.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm reminded of the saying "don't let perfection get in the way of good enough". I think the rule is fine, but you can never please everyone. Out of all the rules in D&D that don't always make a lot of sense if you look at them too long, this is just a really strange hill to die on.

There are stranger hills.

I had a friend who, when he was sufficiently inebriated, would insist (INSIST!) that the Death Star in RoTJ wasn't a new Death Star, it was the old Death Star that they had repaired. And he would go on about it for hours, or until he passed out. Whichever came first.

It was something!

...this feels similar.

 

[Undrave]

Just to reiterate the same thing that has been said for over 2000 comments-

"Bad game design" doesn't make it not a rule.

You have analogized this to a card game; D&D is not a card game. While some editions (such as 4) and other editions (such as 1/2) have greater or lesser reliance on "special terms," it has always been the case that the rules help enable play, but are not the entirety of play.

If you don't like this particular rule, then you are more than welcome to ignore it, or change it, or provide consequences for it.

But the idea that this rule is unclear is bizarre; at a certain point, the arguments in the 2000 comments+ are akin to a sophistic version of Zeno's Arrow Paradox; an attempt to tell people that despite what they see, the arrow never reaches its target.

And yet, it does.


(Look- the area of dispute has always been simple. It's not a "good rule" by your estimation because it's a throwback rule. You don't like the type of rule that it is, which is totally cool! But that doesn't mean that it's either not a rule, or impossible to understand. In fact, outside of the specialized area of INTERNET ARGUMENT FOR SPORT (ahem), I have never seen people at actual tables confused by the rule. But maybe I just play with very basic people?)

I think the rule is ambiguous because 'will', in my mind, invoke the idea of a CHOICE, but there's no consequence for that choice. There's no implication of choice.

I will admit it's not a rule I've had trouble with on a practical sense at a table (we only ever had the one Druid I played and the party already had dragon scale armor for me when I joined them), but I still bristle at the bad wording.

At this point I'm just bothered that nobody seams to think this "rule" is stupidly designed to accomplish its goal. Even if they like the goal.

I get the goal of the "rule", and I accept the goal. I just think they went about it all wrong and should feel shame for this lapse in design proficiency that seems to be quoted from a 35 year old book and not a modern game. They literally rolled a 1 on their Game Design check with that one.

And no, calling it naturalistic language doesn't excuse not using a consistent vocabulary in your rules. It's bad form, plain and simple. It'd be like if spells suddenly switched from feet to meters halfway through the spell section or start referring to "Pyramids" instead of "cones". It would end up with the same result, but it's needlessly messing with the reader.