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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fundamentalists, puritans, rules literalists, no matter what you call them, they're missing a few scres in the head. Don't know what gets into these people that they get so worked up about defending the letter of some code or creed that they never stop to listen to the nonsense coming out of their mouths.

Dear Gamers of the World,

I don’t mean to sound slutty, but you can use me whenever you want.

Sincerely,
The Rules

 

[Undrave]

It's a rule of the game. Your refusal to accept the rules of the game doesn't change the reality.

It doesn’t sound like any other rule in the game. It doesn’t use the same game language/vocabulary as any other rule in the game.
It doesn’t describe a game mechanic (note that the game doesn’t say ‘Rogues can’t wear plates’, it just list what they CAN wear, same with how they CAN use their sneak attack. It’s all affirmative, never negative).

You know what it does sound like? Alignement. You know, the thing that has literally zero mechanical impact.

I am fine with treating ‘won’t wear metal armor’ the same as alignement. In general, Druids decide not to wear metal armor, but in times of strife or when the situation gets desperate (like, say, Gnolls are invading the country and danger is everywhere, or they just escaped captivity without their gear and are grabbing whatever they can find) then, yeah they might wear metal. The same way a vegan trapped on a desert island might survive by hunting. Then, when the situation is resolved, they’ll go back to normal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fundamentalists, puritans, rules literalists, no matter what you call them, they're missing a few scres in the head. Don't know what gets into these people that they get so worked up about defending the letter of some code or creed that they never stop to listen to the nonsense coming out of their mouths.

If something is core to your identity, there is immense psychological pressure to defend it from attack at all costs, including taking actions or saying things that may seem irrational. The closer something is to a person’s core, the stronger the reaction. That’s not fanaticism, that’s human nature.

One of the things that gets drummed into you in mediator training is not to ask someone “Why?” Regardless of how innocuous the context, using that word often triggers feelings that the listener must defend their core identity, not just a particular position or action. And once someone is defending their self, it’s very difficult to move them away from that defensiveness.

 

[lingual]

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.

Power hungry dictator! The rules say nothing about my cowboy hat wearing, Texan oil baron-druid with fracking proficiency. If you don't let me, then you are the problem "between screen and chair".

Seriously though, I can't believe the rhetoric on this. If a DM does not allow metal, then he or she is a bad DM. Some people are really upset about this. There can be no acceptance that a large portion of players feel differently. Almost religious or political. Either that, or this is just a concerted effort to reach 2k posts. Let's just keep it within limits here. I'm still hurt that the halflings thread got locked down at 3K posts.

 

[lingual]

Fundamentalists, puritans, rules literalists, no matter what you call them, they're missing a few scres in the head. Don't know what gets into these people that they get so worked up about defending the letter of some code or creed that they never stop to listen to the nonsense coming out of their mouths.

Calm down there buddy. Talk like that is going to end this thread before even the 1k mark. You know the same exact argument can be flipped around. We are all so right that only our opinions could possibly be right.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Call lighting is not "melee" combat. I said a bladesinger would beat a Druid in MELEE at any level.

Sure it is. It’s just as melee as flaming sphere, or a summoned ally.

not gonna go through the rest of that nonsense. You’re so far off based I’d have to go sentence by sentence to set you right. Have fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it is. It’s just as melee as flaming sphere, or a summoned ally.

not gonna go through the rest of that nonsense. You’re so far off based I’d have to go sentence by sentence to set you right. Have fun.

No spell is melee combat. Melee combat is exclusively physical weapons/attacks. You can use Call Lightning at melee range, but it is not melee combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Sage Advice doesn't in any way or form support this interpretation. Crawford merely explains why it is a rule. Having lore reasoning for the rule does not stop the rule being a rule. That should be blindingly obvious, as most rules in the game have some lore reasoning behind them.

But it I can now certainly see how Sage Advice evolved from actually discussing the reasoning behind the rules to glibly reiterating the RAW back to people. If explaining the lore behind the rule and reminding people that GM can change the rules results people reading it as 'its not really a rule' then why bother?

And yes, I can actually see your agency issue, at least in theory. It would be better if the rule simply was some penalty for wearing the metal. But considering that the issue is unlikely to come up and the player chose this limitation themselves in the first place, I really don't see it as a big deal. And none of this has absolutely anything to do with whether it is a rule. There are a ton of rules in the game that could be formulated better, they're still rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

I don't, the rules do.

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?

Yes you did. When you chose to make a druid.

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.

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?

You decided them, when you chose to make a druid instead of a cleric.

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

This is D&D. A lot of things don't make sense. Also, have you seen real religions?

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.

There are rules in the game which limit what is possible. Shocking, I know.

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?

Why can druids turn into animals and why can clerics turn undead? Why are these different classes differnt? It sure is a mystery! Also, in the real world all three Abrahamic religions supposedly have the same god. They have very differnt restrictions to the faithful though.

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.

You already saw all animals everywhere? Then why the stipulation 'animals you've seen' if it actually means 'all animals'?

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

That is rather harsh way to describe a person adhering to religious limitation. If you said that here about a real religion, you'd be in trouble.

So why can't I use a metal shield?

Because druids don't use such.

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.

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.

Or perhaps the adventure resulted a ton of useful animal bits but no gold at all. The GM decides what to put there, and they hopefully do not configure loot to screw certain classes over.

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.

Sure, they could have. But then your druid would look like a cleric and we don't want that. Seriously, if you don't want to adhere to tropes and rules of druid, don't play a druid. Simple as that.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes I'm a druid. Yes I wear plate mail. We exist.