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

[Charlaquin]

In theory sure, but realistically there will be certain things you cannot do, depending on the GM. Torture, to use a common example, or PVP.

Yes, and these things are agreements enforced by the social contract, not rules of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not how I use that term.

I use it (more or less) as the player's ability to make meaningful decisions.

For example, if the PC spares a villain's life but the DM then just has the villain die of a heart attack that violates player agency. The DM didn't tell the player what their character could or could not do though so under your definition is agency maintained?

Sure, that would also violate player agency. But so would telling the player they can’t spare the villain’s life because “your character wouldn’t do that.”

In the case of a Druid not wearing metal armour the player already agreed to do that and is now breaking that agreement. When I play there are all sorts of things that I don't want people doing at the table. Many of them go unsaid and I am sure to talk about the ones that may be less clear so we're all on the same page. One of those is to not play evil characters and not have direct conflict with other PCs.

Yes, and these things are part of the social contract, not rules of the game.

The Druid one is one of the unsaid ones because it's right there in the rules.

Right, but my point is that if you interpret it as a statement about the lore of the game world, it’s something you might or might not want to enforce as part of the social contract. If you interpret it as a rule, it is either an incomplete rule (because it doesn’t say what happens if a PC druid does decide to try and wear metal armor) or a rule which violates player agency (because it relies on the DM telling the player their character can’t do something on the basis that they “wouldn’t”.)

It's also absurd to frame this as "interpret" it as a rule. It is a rule. One that you may not like, but it's there and it's clear.

I don’t agree that its a rule. It appears to me to be a statement about the lore of the game world, and I believe Sage Advice supports this interpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

In general, I'm very much with you on the point you are making here that 5e is very clear that the player alone decides what the PC thinks, says, and (tries to) do (with the edge case of Charm type spells - but even then I'm more comfortable letting the player describe how that manifests in their characters behavior while I, as DM, simply adjudicate any negative mechanical effects - but I digress). Specifically, I see how you feel the same in relation to the wording on pg 65.

How do you view the wording on pg 45 in the context of the debate?
i.e. the Druid Armor Proficiency of Light and medium armor (nonmetal), shields (nonmetal) bit.

It’s clearly inconsistent with the wording of the druid class, which says they are proficient in light and medium armor and shields, and “won’t use” metal armor or shields. We can resolve this inconsistency in two ways: either assume that the parenthetical is a simplification for the purpose of brevity, and that multiclass druids, like full druids, are meant to be proficient in all light and medium armor and shields and simply “won’t use” metal armor or shields, or we can assume that it is intentional, and multiclass druids are intended to gain fewer armor proficiencies than full druids, only gaining proficiency in nonmetal light and medium armor and nonmetal shields.

Personally, I favor the former interpretation for two reasons. Firstly, it would be very weird to me for a character to be proficient with, say, dragon scale armor but not regular scale mail, and secondly, they could have easily just given multiclass druids proficiency in light armor and hide if that was what they wanted them to have.

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, that would also violate player agency. But so would telling the player they can’t spare the villain’s life because “your character wouldn’t do that.”

Yes, and these things are part of the social contract, not rules of the game.

Right, but my point is that if you interpret it as a statement about the lore of the game world, it’s something you might or might not want to enforce as part of the social contract. If you interpret it as a rule, it is either an incomplete rule (because it doesn’t say what happens if a PC druid does decide to try and wear metal armor) or a rule which violates player agency (because it relies on the DM telling the player their character can’t do something on the basis that they “wouldn’t”.)

I don’t agree that its a rule. It appears to me to be a statement about the lore of the game world, and I believe Sage Advice supports this interpretation.

What are rules without a social contract?

If it said what would happen it would be a different rule because it would be saying that it was open for choice. It's not.

Again, having a player follow the rules is not a violation of player agency. The DM doesn't need to tell them that, the table does for breaking the agreement they made at the start of the game to follow the rules. Making a choice and thereafter being restricted by it is not a 'violation of player agency'. That term means something. This isn't it.

Sage Advice says that Druids who wear metal armour are like vegetarians who eat meat.

They are a contradiction in terms.

 

[Charlaquin]

What are rules without a social contract?

The distinction I’m drawing here is between rules of the game and things that are only part of the social contract. Table rules is what the DMG calls them.

If it said what would happen it would be a different rule because it would be saying that it was open for choice. It's not.

Right, which is why, if you interpret it as a rule, you must accept that it’s a rule which violates player agency. Or limits it, if you prefer.

Again, having a player follow the rules is not a violation of player agency.

It is if the rule is “your character won’t do [thing].” That’s my point.

The DM doesn't need to tell them that, the table does for breaking the agreement they made at the start of the game to follow the rules. Making a choice and thereafter being restricted by it is not a 'violation of player agency'. That term means something. This isn't it.

We disagree about what the term means then. My point is, it’s a rule that violates the player’s ability to decide what their character will or won’t do. Whatever term you want to use for that.

Sage Advice says that Druids who wear metal armour are like vegetarians who eat meat.

A vegetarian can choose to eat meat. If they do, they will probably get sick. The “rule” that says druids “won’t” (again, not “can’t”!) wear metal armor doesn’t say what will happen if one does. Which means, the only way to enforce this “rule” is either to invent a house rule to decide what happens, or to declare that a druid character “wouldn’t” wear metal armor even if their player declares their character would. Which limits the player’s ability to decide what their own character would or would not do, which is to say, their agency.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No he's not, not under the standard rules. Druids will not wear metal armour, so if your character is a druid, they will not wear metal armour. That' the rules.

Sorry, I don't see your name on my character sheet. Why are you telling me what my character is and is not willing to do? The fate of the world is at stake, my character is willing to risk his or her soul for the cause, but they won't pick up a metal shield because that's naughty? My character isn't some zealot willing to see the world burn because of a matter of personal belief, so why are you forcing them to stand firm on an idealogical ground that I never agreed to?

You don't have to. You can wear hide.

I can also wear breastplate. But it seems that if I want to do that, I need to go on a special quest. Why? It won't be an interesting quest. Just find some big bug, kill it, and hope that that's good enough for you to let me have something that anyone else can buy.

Because its part of the class that they don't wear metal armour.

So, I have to jump through hoops, and do something that makes no sense... because I have to. Because someone else decided my character's religious beliefs?

And they aren't even beliefs that make sense. Seems like the kind of "rule" that shouldn't exist.

There aren't. GM can make such up, but they're not required to do so. But if the GM lets wizards to buy spell scrolls, then it means that magic items are in the game and buyable, so druid should also be able to buy a low-level magic armour with unusual material quality.

And if they don't let the wizard buy scrolls? Then I'm not allowed to buy armor? Everyone else can buy armor. I'm capable of wearing the armor. It is literally a choice that my character is being forced to make just because you think they should make that choice.

Again, that's not how that is supposed to work.

Yes. Because druids are not clerics. But if that bothers you, you can certainly play that nature cleric instead, and buy that metal armour. See, almost like these classes were meaningfully different from each other!

So, why does the god of nature have different rules for different believers? Metal armor isn't bad for a cleric, but it is the ultimate sin for a druid? How do you justify that? I can literally play a druid who summons an undead army and is basically a necromancer... but I can't pick up a metal shield because it is unnatural?

It says you can turn into animals you've seen. You presumably need to go into places where these animals live in order to see them.

Yes, and I'm sure that as part of my training I probably did that. Not a lot of point in going out and seeing them a second time.

Sounds like a weakness to me.

Sounds like zealotry to me, and my character isn't a zealot.

That's not really a weakness, as nonmetal shields are just as good. The armour limitation however is.

So why can't I use a metal shield?

Then don't play a druid. Or any character that requires expensive gear for that matter.

Who cares about expensive? Unless the DM is a running a magic item mart there is no way to buy the armor the druid needs right? So, I could have literally thousands of gold and it would do me no good. Gotta go hunt and kill animals in the wild so I can protect the wilds from people who go and hunt and kill animals.

We generally do. That gold to the paladin's full plate must come from somewhere. Whether you adventure and find gold and buy gear with that, or whether you adventure and gather animal bits and make armour out of those or whether you adventure and find magical items it is basically the same thing. You adventure in order to gain better gear. This is literally the classic premise of large part of the game.

Missing the point though. That paladin went on an adventure, got gold, and then got to buy their armor.

The druid went on that same adventure, got gold, then had to go on a second adventure to get the materials to make their own armor.

Sure, maybe the adventure included enough animals of a specific type or the DM handwaves how it works to allow me to make the armor I want, but I bet a quest into an ancient paladin's tomb to kill a necromancer isn't going to have a lot of giant beetles or massive crocodiles.



Meanwhile, I could have just... been allowed to use metal armor, and then the DM wouldn't have to put in special monster encounters for me to fight and hopefully harvest to get the same gear that everyone else just buys with their quest rewards.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In the absense of RAW consequences, I'm still curious about what happens / should happen in (seemingly?) reasonable story situations like:

1. deception of druid by bad guy?
2. charm/suggestion of druid by bad guy?
3. "crisis of faith" by the druid?

Especially the last one, since it might involve some interesting story potential.

Well, it seems that druids can have a crisis of faith... just not about metal shields. They are going to hold onto that belief no matter what the cost. It's in the rules after all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No DM I'd want to continue to play with would do this.

But you would want to continue playing with a DM who hears a character say how they want to play a Dwarven Druid of the Stars, who say a meteorite fall and tracked it down, forging armor from that fallen star to gird him to face the omens of evil yet to come, and responds "I'm sorry, your character wouldn't do that."

 

[abirdcall]

A vegetarian can choose to eat meat. If they do, they will probably get sick.

No, they can't.

If a vegetarian chooses to eat meat they aren't a vegetarian. It's a contradiction.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Earlier, I presented three categories of such "gotchas," none of which seem especially outre. (At least not for a fantasy game where paladins and clerics and the like are routinely hit with "gotchas" of all sorts. )
To repeat:

1. deception of druid by bad guy
2. charm/suggestion of druid by bad guy
3. "crisis of faith" by the druid

And probably lots of others.
Yeah, like much of D&D, these fall outside strict RAW (and of course the GM could simply never put the PC in the first two situations). But are they really that "bizarre"? Are these possibilities really so ghastly to strict RAWist sensibilities that a GM would refuse even to make a "ruling" to flesh out some in-fiction rationales or consequences? That players would quit/be ejected over them?



Making an on-the-spot ruling (that even preserves intent of bad RAW, in this case!) just doesn't seem all that terrible. At least it's marginally more interesting than "Nope, can't do that."

Yeah, or even more simply. The DM describes the ghouls coming, the player says they pick up the fighter's scimitar and shield to help defend the party, and the DM just say "No, you don't pick up the shield. It's made of metal, you wouldn't do that."

Because, again, my character isn't such a zealot that they would let their friends die rather than break a taboo that they have taken on by choice.