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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

It is a bit, but in a way that is highly unlikely to actually matter. It is 'bad' in system aesthetic sense, as it seems so be somewhat out of sync with the style of the edition, but not in sense that it would actually cause any issues in play. It is the sort of thing I might houserule to work differently (i.e. to be consequence based) due my system aesthetic OCD, and then it wouldn't actually ever matter one bit in the game. Druid would never put on a metal armour in either case nor would the players care.

So as issues in the game go, it is somewhere between non-issue and extremely mild annoyance. Hardly worth 107 pages.

 

[Undrave]

It is a bit, but in a way that is highly unlikely to actually matter. It is 'bad' in system aesthetic sense, as it seems so be somewhat out of sync with the style of the edition, but not in sense that it would actually cause any issues in play. It is the sort of thing I might houserule to work differently (i.e. to be consequence based) due my system aesthetic OCD, and then it wouldn't actually ever matter one bit in the game. Druid would never put on a metal armour in either case nor would the players care.

So as issues in the game go, it is somewhere between non-issue and extremely mild annoyance. Hardly worth 107 pages.

Yeah but I like talking game design :/

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sure, the material matters. Now, can you show me a rule that says that half-plate can never be made out of any material except metal? Or are you going to show me a description, like fishing tackle having steel hooks instead of bone hooks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Didn't say you couldn't post it. Was saying your "gotcha" line of questioning was off base because he wasn't talking about people, he was talking about the rule.

Feel free to post whatever you want. Just like I'm free to tell you how far off-base you are.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not evil, either.

You can argue that if you want, I don't agree with Yaarel using the word "evil" but they acknowledge "evils big and small" and so I can see the angle they were approaching from. Saying a rule is wrong though, is different than talking about a person enforcing rules in general.

 

[J.Quondam]

this is just a really strange hill to die on.

To be fair, though, the strangeness of that hill really depends upon the point of view, doesn't it?
Who among us is a dier, and who a diee?

Or something.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, the material matters. Now, can you show me a rule that says that half-plate can never be made out of any material except metal? Or are you going to show me a description, like fishing tackle having steel hooks instead of bone hooks.

The rules say what it is made of. Just like the say that wall of fire spell produces fire instead of water. Feel free to houserule it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Eh, I get it. Really. I totally understand your perspective. if it makes you feel better, I would sign a petition to re-create the scene from Game of Thrones just for this rule...

...not because I feel that strongly, but just because it would be really funny.

However, let me provide you my perspective as to why I am indifferent:
1. In practice it doesn't matter. People get it. They understand the rule.

2. If they are going to have one "throwback" rule, this might as well be it. It's pretty inconsequential.

3. It would be much more difficult to express the rule correctly using alternate methods. Which is weird, but think about it- if you do it just using the proficiency system and the "normal" rules, it gets weird. If you do it in a positive manner (by expressing that, for example, Druids can wear hide and not stating the other medium armors) then that doesn't answer questions about multiclassing or alternate materials. If you attach a penalty (Druids are 'non-proficient' with metal armor) you'd have the same arguments that you currently have- "It doesn't make sense. How can you be proficient in Dragon Scale, but not proficient in Metal Scale." Etc. While you find the rule inelegant, and others argue about player agency, it's a quick way of expressing the concept that most people understand.

...but again, IMO the reason it's a poor rule isn't really about the rule qua rule, it's because it reflects a design choice that no longer exists that much in 5e.

 

[lingual]

If a Druid was wearing metal armor, they could cast Heat Metal on them selves to punish themselves. You could also cast it on a grill and cook some mean steaks. No fire or charcoal needed.

 

[Undrave]

. It would be much more difficult to express the rule correctly using alternate methods. Which is weird, but think about it- if you do it just using the proficiency system and the "normal" rules, it gets weird. If you do it in a positive manner (by expressing that, for example, Druids can wear hide and not stating the other medium armors) then that doesn't answer questions about multiclassing or alternate material

There is two super easy way to fix it:

1- Give them only proficiency in Light Armour and Hide Armour. That means that, if a Player wants to play a tin plated Druid, they totally can, they just need to find the proficiencies elsewhere and there's no question that needs to be asked about materials or multi classing or whatever. It just works like every other damn armor proficiencies, even if a little weird.

2- Make it so they can't use Wildshape while wearing metal armor (while having a sidebar in the armor section about alternate materials) or even while wearing anything with a higher AC than Hide. That way, non-Moon Druid could have a decent choice.

You could also make it a purely narrative detail and not care that every Druid end up in half-plates but that's not a popular answer.

You could also give the Druid a kind of 'unarmored defence' that stop working if they get someone better than Hide armor.

It's really not that difficult.