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

[Faolyn]

If a player wants to play a warlock, but doesn’t want to have a patron, does that violate player agency?

Let’s take a real example. A player wants to play tiefling fiend warlock, but instead of having a devil as a patron, he wants his powers to come from his infernal bloodline (making him similar to a cambion).

Does the rule that warlocks require a patron violate player agency?

The entire premise of the warlock is making a pact with a patron. Huge amounts of text are written on this. Every archetype is based around a different type of patron.

The thing with the druids and metal armor is one little badly-written sentence off to the side.

 

[mrpopstar]

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?

Yes!

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).

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.

That's just one of the many caveats I have with the rule. It's not game-breaking, it's merely annoying and not in the spirit of the bulk of the rules.

I'm not moving to shut things down but if it's just annoying to you then take my hand and we'll go die on some other hill. LOL

It's not explicit but we can infer that druids aren't proficient in metal armors because they will not wear them, and there's no DM-player negotiation unless we insist.

Hopefully this is language they'll clear up definitively in a future printing.

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.

I keep seeing the topic of "player agency" come up, and what "violating agency" entails. ?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. But interpreting the page 45 to have priority (i.e. druids lack proficiency in metal armours) actually solves your issue with the rule. The player has agency to decide that their character puts on metal armour, they just suffer non-proficiency penalties for it.

Agreed! And if I thought that was the intent, I would have no problem with the rule. I don’t think that’s the intent though, and again, I think Sage Advice supports me in that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I kind of disagree with this. Suppose I am a first time player. I read the druid section, where it explicitly says “proficient in medium armors, will not wear metal armors”.

I just can’t imagine any first time player reading that and concluding “well, it says “will not”, not “can’t” so I guess it means I can purchase metal armors because otherwise, my agency as a player is being infringed”.

This seems to presume both a first time player and a player that is well-versed in parsing text like a rules lawyer and up to date with rather abstruse internal RPG arguments.

Even assuming such a player, I can’t imagine such a player not just asking their DM about it “Hmm… it says “will not”, not “can’t”, does this mean that there are certain circumstances in which I “could” wear metal armor?”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, it's a fairly big difference because getting armor proficiency through feats or MC is really common.

Sure, it affects how you can circumvent the limitation, but no so much the actual effects of the limitation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I keep seeing the topic of "player agency" come up, and what "violating agency" entails. ?

I’ve explained it several times now, but I know the conversation can be hard to follow in a fast-moving thread like this. If a player playing a druid character declares that they don metal armor, the only ways for the DM to enforce the statement that druids “will not” wear metal armor is to tell the player “no, you don’t don that armor, because your character wouldn’t do that.” “Your character wouldn’t do that” is pretty much the ur-example of a DM stepping on player agency.

You could of course preserve player agency by creating a house-ruled consequence for donning metal armor, or by relying on the social contract, perhaps with a table rule. But in these cases you’re going outside of the rule itself. Hence my assertion that if you interpret it as a rule, rather than a statement about the lore of the game world, it is either an incomplete rule, or a rule that violates player agency (or if you like, it forces the DM to violate player agency to enforce it.)

 

[guachi]

That's just one of the many caveats I have with the rule. It's not game-breaking, it's merely annoying and not in the spirit of the bulk of the rules.

It's not in the spirit with the bulk of the rules in how it's written. But it is in the spirit of 5e as a whole - an edition intended to reflect, honor, and echo earlier editions of D&D. That overarching feel is largely why I started playing D&D again in 2014 after skipping 3e and 4e.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, it affects how you can circumvent the limitation, but no so much the actual effects of the limitation.

Being able to dip into another class to get real medium armor proficiency or heavy armor proficiency would make a fairly big difference into how druids are played.

I mean, every druid guide mentions how most MC dips aren't generally worthwhile for a druid because of the armor class issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It makes a difference even if you never gain proficiency from another source, because there are clear rules describing what happens if you don armor you aren’t proficient with. If druids were simply considered not to be proficient in any armor made of metal, it would be considerably less restrictive than the restriction that they won’t wear it.

Is it though? Like in practice outside some bizarre strawman hypotheticals? Disadvantage on any ability checks, saving throws, or attack rolls that involves strength or dex, and you can’t cast spells. Does anyone actually do this in a game? The practical result is the same, the armour is not worn.

Agreed! And if I thought that was the intent, I would have no problem with the rule. I don’t think that’s the intent though, and again, I think Sage Advice supports me in that.

More reasons to ignore Sage Advice. The death of the author!

 

[TwoSix]

It's not in the spirit with the bulk of the rules in how it's written. But it is in the spirit of 5e as a whole - an edition intended to reflect, honor, and echo earlier editions of D&D. That overarching feel is largely why I started playing D&D again in 2014 after skipping 3e and 4e.

Yes, but it could have been written to do that while still not being so awkward. You can defend the trope and still criticize the wording and construction of the rule.