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

[CleverNickName]

Which in no way prevents them from putting it on. It's a purely in-fiction rule that can be broken by druids in-fiction.

...except that they wouldn't, per the PHB.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

. Why slap that one bone out of their mouth?

In the words of George Mallory, old school DM and occasional mountain climber … “Because it’s there.”

 

[Northern Phoenix]

What about that player's fun?

You get to run, play and design everything that isn't that player's character. Why slap that one bone out of their mouth?

Like i said before, there are very few DMs who allow literally any type of character. Some DMs don't allow evil characters, some DMs don't allow horny characters, some DMs don't allow lone-wolf solo characters. I personally, rather than need to micromanage a players every decisions minute to minute, would instead ask up front that people don't make characters that are made to be directly contrarian to the very normal fantasy world i prefer to play in. I don't think it's too much to ask of people that they please not make characters that atheist clerics, nature-hating druids, illiterate wizards, never-angry barbarians or other such things. That still leaves an enormous variety of characters people can make and flesh out. Other DMs might be fine with any or all of those, but other DMs can be fine with evil characters, pvp characters, and that kind of stuff, which is fine, but i don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people stick to this level of very broad guideline for character creation.

 

[Charlaquin]

...except that they wouldn't, per the PHB.

The PHB also says the players decide what their characters do.

 

[Maxperson]

If you have a problem with the rule, it's not the fault of the DM.

Fanatically being a slave to the rule is the fault of the DM. If there is an in-fiction reason for breaking a purely in-fiction rule and the DM says no, that's a bad ruling on the part of the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

...except that they wouldn't, per the PHB.

Which as no force. It's literally entirely an in-fiction rule. There is no good reason why in-fiction my druid wouldn't don metal armor to save all of nature. It's nonsense to think or demand that he not put on the armor and just let nature die.

 

[abirdcall]

You’re talking about making the metal armor restriction a part of the social contract. That’s fine, that’s your group’s decision to make, but it isn’t part of the rules of the game. If we interpret the restriction as a rule of the game rather than a part of the social contract, then it’s a rule of the game that takes what a character “would do” out of the hands of the player, which is indeed a violation of player agency.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Playing by the rules is the social contract that most people have.

Please tell me what you mean by 'player agency' because it sounds very different than what I think it means.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which as no force. It's literally entirely an in-fiction rule. There is no good reason why in-fiction my druid wouldn't don metal armor to save all of nature. It's nonsense to think or demand that he not put on the armor and just let nature die.

Please, only all of the nature? While you're at it, make it so that the fate of entire universe depends solely on your druid being able to wear that metal halfplate! You need to be more ambitious when building your never-actually-gonna-happen-unless-GM-intentionally-builds-a-dickish-gotcha scenarios!

 

[Maxperson]

Please, only all of the nature? While you're at it, make it so that the fate of entire universe depends solely on your druid being able to wear that metal halfplate! You need to be more ambitious when building your never-actually-gonna-happen-unless-GM-intentionally-builds-a-dickish-gotcha scenarios!

Yes or no. Do you think it's reasonable for the druid to let nature die, or would he don the armor?

 

[Charlaquin]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Im trying to say that if you interpret the metal armor restriction as a rule, it must be a rule that violates player agency. If you interpret it as a statement about the lore, which is enforced via the social contract, then it isn’t a game rule.

Playing by the rules is the social contract that most people have.

Sure.

Please tell me what you mean by 'player agency' because it sounds very different than what I think it means.

I mean that the player has sole authority over what their own character “would” or “wouldn’t” do.