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

[tetrasodium]

So, this restriction against metal armor for druids is primarily a "fluff thing" and... like most D&D "fluff things" it wasn't very well thought out, and it took a very narrow historical/literary inspiration and applied it very broadly in a "one size fits nothing" sort of fashion. (See the history of clerics and bludgeoning weapons, for example.)

Problem is, if you just shrug and allow druids to wear any armor they want-- you're going to see all your druids in half-plate automatically, and we don't want that, not because it's "overpowered", but because it's weird and it doesn't fit our idea of what a druid is supposed to look like.

Personally, I think D&D could stand to do with a crash course on spiritual taboos that aren't based around punitive consequences, but the character's inability to make the decision to break them. A druid will not wear metal armor. Wearing armor doesn't make them an ex-druid, they have to become an ex-druid to make the decision to wear metal armor. Maybe the one (and only) druid taboo isn't a great example for this, but this is ripe territory for warlocks.

Yes and no so I'll give a quick nutell summary that may or may not have some technical errors in phrasing. The 2e druid was sort of like a slightly more developed UA type thing iirc & there were so so many system differences that it's almost impossible to compare so lets ignore that. The 3.5 druid had this barkskin which was god damned amazing. In short, you cast it on someone and they get between a +2 & +5 natural armor bonus. Natural armor was almost impossible to get unless you had a race (like monstrous lizardman) that gave it at the cost of a level adjustment or found some PrC that gave it to you. Even if you did that it was an enhancement bonus to natural armor so would stack with it even before adding on the target's armor shield & so on. Druids couldn't use metal armor because it would be so ungodly broke that even the most irredeemable munchkin would admit it would be a bit over the top at least if not more. Druids could wear ironwood armor though (which existed at a high cost making it something a druid might buy or gain by casting a level six ironwood spell

That is why these discussions keep bringing up the lack of alternate armor materials and the god awful virtually worthless barkskin spell in 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Words have meanings. Words. Have. Meanings.

Snipping everything that isn't admittedly and clearly abusive...

And 'Class' is a discreet package of abilities used to build a character. They should not be a straightjacket to force the player to play a particular character. How much a player wants to engage with the flavor text tied to the class should be up to them.

As for the argument about the 'rule' and divine characters: Godless clerics have been around forever. Druids don't even have a god in core. You never need to actually be in contact with a warlock's patron or even be aware of their existence.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, here is the entire text in the Players Handbook.

"Druid: Proficiencies: Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

In the only context that there is: Druids will wear medium armor etcetera and will have proficiency with these, but Druids will not wear medium armor etcetera if made of metal and will not have proficiency with those.

The proficiency with the armor categories wont include the proficiency with the metal versions of these armor categories.

You keep repeating this as if "will not" means "isn't proficient in." And yet it doesn't.

 

[Yaarel]

You keep repeating this as if "will not" means "isn't proficient in." And yet it doesn't.

The same future-tense verb applies to the proficiency too.

The Druids will wear nonmetal armors proficiently, but will not wear metal armors proficiently.

 

[carkl3000]

but if he's a cool guy that mostly does the right thing then whatevs...

Yes, this was a glib answer, but now I'm asking earnestly. Which god is it that demands that their adherents not wear metal armor?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The same future-tense verb applies to the proficiency too.

The Druids will wear nonmetal armors proficiently, but will not wear metal armors proficiently.

'Proficiently' is not part of the entry.

Druids have proficiency with medium armor, but will not wear metal armor. For Reasons.

 

[Yaarel]

'Proficiently' is not part of the entry.

Druids have proficiency with medium armor, but will not wear metal armor. For Reasons.

The technical term "proficiencies" is there in the formatted text!

"Druid: Proficiencies: Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

The point of this formatted entry is to specify "proficiency", and the armor proficiency will not apply to wearing metal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then I guess he doesn't cast divine spells, does he?

Not in my game at least. Because if druids are casting divine spells they are no different from clerics.

#BringbackPrimal

 

[lingual]

You all are wrong. The correct RAW and RAI is that druids can only wear metal armor.

Furthermore, any deviation from this means you must all disband your campaigns and are on DnD probation for 18 months because you are all bad and wrong for having an opinion that differs from mine.

 

[Ancalagon]

Mage armor, a shield and +2 dex is better than any non metal medium armor and shield and same stats.

Barkskin is garbage.

What about non-metal scale mail? It does exist in the real world, it's not a made up thing. So in a fantasy setting... better than mage armor (well in the AC meaning, it still is noisier and heavier)

And yes, barskin is garbage in 5e.