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

[FrozenNorth]

No. That “rule” (also not a rule by the way) doesn’t define for the player what their own character will or won’t do.

I disagree. I don’t create an arbitrary distinction between rules that have an obviously mechanical effect and rules that do not.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that either rule cannot be modified for a more interesting game, including at a player’s request.

 

[TwoSix]

If that is your conception of player agency, fair enough. I don’t see it as meaningfully different from the restriction on druids wearing metal armor, in which case, “druids wearing metal armor” is not the sole rules that restricts player agency.

I don't see a meaningful difference between them either, in the sense I enforce both "non-metal druid armor" and "warlock patrons" only as setting tropes and not something that would be an actual restriction on the player.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree. I don’t create an arbitrary distinction between rules that have an obviously mechanical effect and rules that do not.

I feel like if you can tell the difference between a rule that has an "obviously mechanical" effect and one that doesn't, then it isn't an arbitrary distinction, is it?

My general problem with the druid non-metal rule is that rules that are based on "in-universe" logic (druids are priests of nature who shun the trappings of civilization, etc.) should be enforced at the "in-universe" level, not at a metagame level. Right now, the only way to enforce the rule is to have a metagame discussion with the players that druids simply "can't" put on armor for any reason. It's the same reason I had a problem with wizard armor restrictions and cleric weapon restrictions back in earlier editions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not everyone who is arguing for a looser interpretation of the druid metal armor taboo is saying that you are wrong for wanting to stick to a strict prohibition on using or gaining benefit without consequences, I think that's absolutely reasonable and supported if that's how you read the rules. (I do realize that some absolutely are arguing that. I don't really agree with the interpretation that there is no support in the rules for any prohibition on druids wearing metal armor.)

I do think that some who are arguing for a more moderate interpretation, are just trying to point out that if a player says their druid character picks up a shield or dons an item of metal armor, and the response is to stop the game and just say flat out that "No. They don't. Pick something else to do," that that's kind of an inelegant way to go about it and it really is interfering with player agency. It seems like for most situations that might come up it should be possible to work with it instead of just shutting it down. I know that it must happen that a GM has to deal with an abusive or unruly player, but I think it seems odd to a lot of us that this one, mostly inconsequential, thing would trigger such a "my way or the highway" response.

Given that there's that table in the PHB that says druids are proficient with medium armor (non-metal) I think it's very reasonable to use a game mechanics approach to disincentivize the choice. If not that, I think it's fine to invent some kind of physical revulsion, or divine intervention, or social consequence, or whatever to make it clear to the player that this is not a choice that comes lightly to the character. Then continue on with the game and try to get the player something equivalent to the prohibited metal item when the opportunity arises.

...or of course, you are fully within your rights to stop the game and say, "No. You don't do that. Try again." I just think that doing that seems more wrong to some of us than choosing to be a little looser with the metal armor thing.

I fully agree that the rule as written is weird and it might be a good idea to houserule it to be consequence based than just a flat no. I have no problem with this at all, this is what I would probably do if it ever came up. (My current campaign has seriously altered armour rules due the tech level and no one is playing a druid, so the problem is not relevant to me at the moment.)

My only real issue is with the people who claim that it is not a rule at all and thus they can just decide to not abide by it. To me that would be a massive warning sign to not play with such a person. Like I'm super fine with a player asking if a rule could be changed, but if people genuinely cannot recognise and accept rules then that's gonna be a problem. Who knows what rule they next decide is not actually a rule and thus they don't need to follow it!

I also disagree with the people who think that not wearing metal isn't an important part of the D&D druid imagery and themes, but that's more of a matter of differing preferences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope, the rules say I can decide what my character does. It doesn't matter what druids in general will or won't do, I control my character.



Not all druids are zealots. That shouldn't even be a thing we need to state. Players decide their own characters beliefs.



No, see, I decided my character had different beliefs, ones that made sense. You are sitting there telling me that I'm not allowed to do that. Because Da' Rulez!



Yes, I have. I've done a bit of studying into various religious practices and beliefs. They very strongly tend to be internally consistent. Now, there are obviously examples of where the world moved on and the religion didn't, but when you go back to the original context, the rules in the religion are internally consistent.

Now, take a look back at this. I could play a druid who has four, metal artificial limbs per the rules, and that is 100% okay. I go to pick up a metal shield and I am breaking the laws of the universe because my character must consider a metal shield unnatural. If given a choice between wearing the skin of a horror from the Far Realms, whose very being is poison to reality, or wearing metal I dug up myself from a sacred mountain.... the most "natural" option is the Far Realms Horror? Really?

And if you go back to the original context of 2e, not only does it still not make sense (after all Metal is still natural) but you have an additional little wrinkle. You had to pay gold to level up, up until level 11. So, this sacred order that eschews metal for being too unnatural required you to pay in mined and minted metal to progress down their sacred teachings.... Nonsensical



And yet only one rule that limits my ability to choose my own actions in game. And people are defending it like a sacred writ. Yes, I find that shocking.



I do agree that if both classes are worshipping gods they shouldn't be different, that's why I prefer the primal power source and to kick the gods out of nature.

And are you trying to imply that if a cleric declared they would never wear metal armor they would gain wildshape, or if a druid started wearing armor they'd get channel divinity? Because I'm talking about their religion and you are bringing up their powers, so can they mix and match? Because the gods of FR are pretty consistent, especially Sylvanus, guy has a single creed and he sticks to it. Yet he has a group with a single overriding rule that extends into the mutliverse to apply to Druids trained by dragons in a world without gods? That seems.... nonsensical.



Of course I didn't see every single animal in existence. But I've seen enough.



If someone stood in front of me and said they'd follow their voluntary religious tenants, even in the face of that getting their friends killed, instead of temporarily breaking that taboo and then seeking atonement afterwards, I'd still call them a zealot.




But I can have metal limbs, use a metal staff, wear a metal crown, put on metal rings and pendants. Heck, it isn't armor, I could wear a chainmail bikini and sleep under a chainmail blanket.

Can't pick up a metal shield.



Hopefully.

Or, if it was truly so vitally important that druid's never wear metal armor, they could provide alternatives. But they won't. Because as soon as they do, no one would wear metal armor. And we can't have the de facto status quo change, especially for a straight up power increase.



Not using metal isn't a trope and rule of a druid. Metal is a natural material. Shaping it via fire is just as natural as using lye and acid and other chemical compounds to strip a hide and cure it into leather. A process that could involve the use of heavy metals like mercury.

If I can use metal seven ways to Sunday, then there is no reason I can't pick up a metal shield except that someone wanted to make a rule that they didn't think through, for a fantasy religion they clearly didn't understand.

Tl;dr, you think it is dumb limitation I don't. The one thing I agree with you is that it is somewhat weird that same god has both clerics and druids and in my setting that is not the case. Clerics are powered by gods, druids are powered by nature spirits. But this is just (once again) an issue with the Forgotten Realms lore being dumb.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I played a Druid/cleric/paliden in my friends game. I wanted to start with (we were like 6th level starting I was 1/3/2) full plate and he pulled the BS “it says you won’t even though you are never talking more levels in Druid you just won’t… I sighed and let it go… then 3-4 games in (and our sorcerer useing heat metal a lot) by having a villain wear +1 dragon scale plate armor and wield a dragon tooth long sword and a bone shield… when we beat him one player said “I guess this was all for you” to my Druid and the DM lost it…

he claimed even though no metal was on it that it was still metal type armor so I was not prof… I pointed out my first level was paliden for max D10 ho so I am PROF in all armor and weapons and he threw a fit

it was not our first warning sign. It was also not the (only) reason we stopped playing his game and my buddy Matt started his campaign… but boy was it a red flag.

Not letting the druid to wear the dragon scale armour is obvious and total BS on the GM's part.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What if it was an iron dragon's scale?

 

[Maxperson]

The issue is that pages 45 and 65 say a different things, and if there is a legitimate issue with the rule, it is that. However, without Crawford's 'clarification' of the matter, and just looking at the book it would be somewhat logical to conclude that page 65 is just awkwardly worded and page 45 confirms lack of proficiency.

That mighty be the case if page 164 did not also exist saying the exact same thing as 65. First, when you have a longer explanation, it's usually the correct one over a much shorter explanation. You're relying on many more words being used incorrectly by a company with editors and professional writers. Second, we have not one, but two longer explanations that both match and one synopsis on page 45 that doesn't. That means that we have the more complete wording existing in TWO different places, making it even less likely that page 45 is correct. You have to ignore Occam's Razor to conclude that the one short version is correct. That or you really want to ignore the more likely scenario, because the less likely one matches your preferred version.

In any case, neither of the pages in any way imply that druids totally wear metal armour all the time. Both are clear on that they don't, so any reading that arrives to the totally opposite conclusion is obviously ludicrously incorrect.

They don't imply any length of time. The two more likely of the three do allow choice, though. They are in-fiction rules only. Out of the fiction they are not a rule, and in-fiction rules can be broken by PC/NPC choice.

 

[Maxperson]

This is an easy question. The response is identical to “if there is a ticking time bomb and the only way to defuse it is to torture a terrorist, what would you do?”

I would torture the terrorist. It wouldn't be a good thing, but it would save a ton of lives. Now answer my question.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What if it was an iron dragon's scale?

I don't think metallic dragons are actually made of metal any more than sea cucumbers are made of actual cucumber. Though it's fantasy, so who knows? But heat metal didn't work on it, so it obviously wasn't metal.