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

[carkl3000]

I think the assumption is that the player has read the druid description, understood the rule, and agreed to follow it when they rolled up their druid. So their agency has already been addressed on this matter.

As evidenced by this thread, it could easily happen that the player read the druid description, came to a different understanding of the rule or in-world taboo, and agreed to follow what they believe to be the correct interpretation. It might not agree with the DMs interpretation.

When I rolled up a druid, I talked with my DM about metal armor and alternative material medium armors, but only because I spend an inordinate amount of time reading about this crap on the internet. If I came back after having that discussion and said I do something that we had agreed was out of bounds, then I would be a jerk. But conversely, if there was no common understanding beforehand, and the player had assumed they'd be able to use medium armor, and the DM made that impossible after the game had begun, then I think maybe the DM is being a jerk.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the assumption is that the player has read the druid description, understood the rule, and agreed to follow it when they rolled up their druid. So their agency has already been addressed on this matter.

I understand that, but for a moment let’s entertain the idea that a player chose to play a druid, and then during play declares that their character dons a (metal) chain shirt. What can the DM do in this situation? Well, they can invent a consequence, which is a house rule. They can say “your character wouldn’t do that,” which violates the player’s agency. Or they can say “by agreeing to play a druid, you’ve agreed not to wear metal armor; you’re now breaking that agreement,” and incur consequences according to the social contract. In either case 1 or case 3, you have to go beyond what’s written in the book to enforce the restriction, which makes it incomplete as a rule. In case 2 it is a complete rule, but it is unique among D&D rules in that it requires the DM to tell the player what their own character will and won’t do. That’s a valid way to read it, but I don’t think it’s the intent.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I agree that it would depend on the setting. I also apply that approach to rules with a mechanical effect. For instance, I frequently allow Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters to switch the wizard schools they have access to.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It reads like a rule and is referenced in the class rules summary chart. It is a rule. The designer explaining why it is a rule doesn't make it a not rule. It is completely mind-boggling the this is even a discussion.

One text indicates druids get proficiency in light and medium armors but wont wear metal, the other indicates that they get proficiency in light medium armor but not metal armor.

Which reads more like an actual rule written by professionals rather than something scribbled on a pizza box in the 70's?

Moreover, he doesn't back up that a druid won't, only why they don't have proficiency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because medium armor proficiency means that the character shouldn't need any more than 14 Dex to achieve their best possible starting AC. (16 AC with scale mail, 18 with shield).

But they don't have unconditional medium armour proficiency. The limitation is part of their rules, just like rogues not having medium armour proficiency at all is part of theirs. It is easier to think druids as light armour wearers with an extra rule that they might be able to use some special medium armours. But considering the level of entitlement the simple words 'medium armour proficiency' causes, I feel it might have just been the best to not give it to them at all.

The non-metal rule puts a simple aspect of character building (what armor should I get) into the realm of DM-player negotiation and world-building (well, can I find armor made of scales? What about bone armor, like Dark Sun? etc, etc.) where I don't think it's really warranted.

Like the existence and buyability of magic items, spell scrolls, availability of expensive items, availability of money and countless other things.

 

[CleverNickName]

The thing is, it doesn't read like a rule and doesn't seem to be intended to be an actual rule PER THE WRITER. Please point to ANYTHING similar that restricts a character from willingly doing something they actually COULD DO. When it's the only proud nail removing player agency, maybe that's a clue that it isnt intended to be a rule?

Come on, folks. This "Prove it! Prove it or ELSE!" attitude isn't helpful.

It's in the Player's Handbook, right there next to the druid's armor proficiencies. It's different, but it's there. We can go (and have gone) nuts with discussions of why it's there, and how it got there, and whether or not it should be there at all, but...it's still there.

If you want to play a druid and you have an issue with this (or any other) rule, all you have to do is ask your DM about it and talk it through. Your DM might change the rule and give you an alternative, or they might suggest you pick a different class to play if your character concept is focused on metal armor, it's all good. That's totally cool.

Or you could play the rule as intended: your DM might ask you "So tell us a little about your druid: why won't your druid wear metal armor?" and that would give you a chance to say something cool and personal about your character, something like "my druid is claustrophobic and cannot stand the thought of being encased in inorganic material" or whatever, and the story is richer for it. That's cool too.

But it's not cool for you to say "I'm going to play a druid, but I don't like this one rule so I'm going to ignore it. My druid is going to make a beeline to the armor shop, buy a steel breastplate, and wear it, rules be damned. And then I'm going to argue with you, and the rulebook, and everyone else at this table until everyone agrees with me." Seriously, who does that?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Then you have two bits of sacred text conflicting each other.

Poorly organized? Yeah, I'm on board with that. Conflicting? I don’t think so - not in the torch v darkness case. Just use the rules together to make a ruling that makes sense for your table. The rules serve the DM, after all, to help achieve fun at the table.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

As evidenced by this thread, it could easily happen that the player read the druid description, came to a different understanding of the rule or in-world taboo, and agreed to follow what they believe to be the correct interpretation. It might not agree with the DMs interpretation.

When I rolled up a druid, I talked with my DM about metal armor and alternative material medium armors, but only because I spend an inordinate amount of time reading about this crap on the internet. If I came back after having that discussion and said I do something that we agreed was out of bounds, then I would be a jerk. But conversely, if there was no common understanding beforehand, and the player had assumed they'd be able to use medium armor, and the DM made that impossible after the game had begun, then I think maybe the DM is being a jerk.

So you engaged in a significant amount of research and armed with all of that research went to someone who may or may not have a level of system understanding needed to even grasp the problem like you were asking for some kind of homebrew class.... Yea... That's part of the problem. Even if the GM in question had memorized literally every word & table in every 5e book to date 5e is horrible at explaining any depth or intent behind sections in the rules that would allow that gm to confidentially make decisions as an informed participant compared to older editions.

 

[Remathilis]

The idea of druids as uncompromising is just silly. They’re wardens of nature. Fire bad, except you need fire to manage forests. Mining bad, but if a necromancer has raised army and needs to be stopped, you’re not gonna avoid using the best tools to defeat him.

Likewise, the idea they wouldn’t recycle armor through use is just as silly.

If we're going to use "ends justify the means" then we're open up a whole new can of worms. I mean, you can argue that a druid is justified burning a logging camp to the ground if they are despoiling a forest or that the best way to keep a village from growing too large is a good-old-fashioned famine. But you tried arguing there are definitive Good and Evil the other day, so I imagine you can't be trying to justify breaking your moral or ethical codes just for the sake of expediency...

 

[Umbran]

sacred text worshippers

Mod Note:
We need you to be more respectful of others. This insulting stuff really isn't appropriate.