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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

No one who just reads the PHB in good faith would genuinely come to conclusion that druids would wear metal armour. It is plainly said in three differnt places that they don't. The argument only exists thanks to bizarre internet rules lawyering. (And yes, bizarre, this is weirdest rules-lawyering I've ever seen. "It's not a rule because the designer explained the lore and legacy reasons for the rule.")

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Well, I disagree there. They absolutely do have proficiency with any medium armor, they simply won't wear metal armors. That's very different from not having proficiency with them.

If the rule was "Proficiency: light armors, nonmetal medium armors" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Then we have a simple consequence to a druid wearing non-metal armor, they suffer the non-proficiency penalty just like a rogue wearing plate would. That would be totally fine.

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

None of those impact character creation and concept in the same way.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

I disagree. I believe that all rules have a mechanical effect, some are simply more obvious than others.

To give another example, the wizard’s spellbook. Is this a rule with a mechanical effect or not? In most games I have played, the wizard’s spellbook has no mechanical effect: if a wizard falls in the water, there is no issue about potential water damage to the book, the book is never stolen, nor held hostage. There is no in-game difference between the wizard having a spellbook or tattooing runes of power onto his body. Other campaigns may give the spellbook a mechanical effect. OotA starts with the wizard player deprived of his or her spellbook and therefore they cannot change their spells memorized until they recover it.

Every rule in the game can have some sort of mechanical effect, which doesn’t change the fact that they should be freely changed if it makes the game more interesting for everyone.

 

[TwoSix]

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...

I would hope plenty of druid players argue exactly that! I mean, that's the philosophy behind one of the major druid sects in Eberron (The Children of Winter), just as an example.

 

[Oofta]

That doesn't change the fact that by the PHB (you don't need the DMG to play), you cannot see light through darkness. It's dumb, and poorly written, but that is the rule. All these sacred text worshippers need to square that the rules contradict themselves, so maybe some amount of parsing through the sloppy naturalistic language is necessary.

The PHB doesn't need to explain how light works any more than it needs to explain that if you walk off the edge of a cliff you fall.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

I strongly believe that in those cases, the terrorist is a patsy. They are not the person putting people in danger.

The most ethical solution in that case is to shoot the ethicist. Not only are they directly responsible for the bomb, but they are also responsible for creating lazy hypotheticals.

 

[Remathilis]

The PHB doesn't need to explain how light works any more than it needs to explain that if you walk off the edge of a cliff you fall.

I feel like we need to revive the old Fire and Brimstone lava rules again.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I disagree there. They absolutely do have proficiency with any medium armor, they simply won't wear metal armors. That's very different from not having proficiency with them.

In practice it is not. The end result is the same. They don't wear those types of armours.

If the rule was "Proficiency: light armors, nonmetal medium armors" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's what the chart on the page 45 actually says...

Then we have a simple consequence to a druid wearing non-metal armor, they suffer the non-proficiency penalty just like a rogue wearing plate would. That would be totally fine.

Yes, that would be clearer. But in practice the end result would be the same 99.9% of the time. No one really uses armour they're not proficient with in a real game.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree. I believe that all rules have a mechanical effect, some are simply more obvious than others.

To give another example, the wizard’s spellbook. Is this a rule with a mechanical effect or not? In most games I have played, the wizard’s spellbook has no mechanical effect: if a wizard falls in the water, there is no issue about potential water damage to the book, the book is never stolen, nor held hostage. There is no in-game difference between the wizard having a spellbook or tattooing runes of power onto his body. Other campaigns may give the spellbook a mechanical effect. OotA starts with the wizard player deprived of his or her spellbook and therefore they cannot change their spells memorized until they recover it.

Every rule in the game can have some sort of mechanical effect, which doesn’t change the fact that they should be freely changed if it makes the game more interesting for everyone.

The wizard's spellbook has an obvious mechanical effect. It allows the player character to swap the prepared spells the character has during a long rest with other spells that are listed in the spellbook.

Now, the form of the spellbook may or may not cause a narrative condition that has downstream mechanical penalties, but that doesn't mean the form of the spellbook is a specific mechanic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Bumping (and rephrasing) my question to you as I think it got lost in the torrent of other replies:

ph 45 of the PHB, which is the lead in for the Class chapter, indicates the Druid armor proficiencies with the word “nonmetal”. So the consequences are implicit. Wearing armor while lacking proficiency to that armor causes… etc…

yes?

Yeah, sorry, I misremembered the text in question as being about multiclassing when you first asked it. Given that it is meant to refer to all druids, I think it is clearly inconsistent with the wording in the druid class entry, which says they are proficient in light and medium armor but won’t wear metal armor, rather than that they are only proficient in nonmetal light and medium armor. To resolve this inconsistency, we basically have to pick one of the two quotes to give priority to. I personally think giving priority to the text in the druid entry is the stronger interpretation, for two reasons: first, it would be weird for druids to be proficient in dragonscale armor but not standard scale mail, and second, if the intent was for druids to only be proficient in light armor and hide, they could have easily just said that. I also think the text on page 45 could more easily be read as a poorly worded summary of for the text in the druid entry than the reverse.