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

[Crimson Longinus]

So what identity is being enforced by having druids who can deck themselves out in hundreds of iron and steel chains as "jewelry" but can't hold a single sheet of steel in their left hand (metal shield)?

A druid can ride and use a mech (the Apparatus of Kwalish) or forge and animate an Iron Golem (Tome of Iron Golems) but can't wear a suit of chain mail.

They can wield a staff made entirely from iron, no penalties or questions.

So, where is the identity here?

Sure, they can do those things, but they probably won't. They're not incentivised to do so. They gain no particular benefit from hundreds of iron chains or from a iron staff. They however gain significant benefit from metal armour. Please understand, that a world where druids can wear metal armour is a world where all druids will wear metal armour.

 

[Yaarel]

But, per the rules as read absolutely, they still won't wear metal armor. So, a druid who takes the heavily armored feat to gain proficiency with heavy armor... still can't wear full plate.

That is what the wording does. And it makes no sense.

I read the rule to mean, the Druid is proficient with scalemail made from dragon scales, but not with scalemail made from metal.

But there is no flavor here. Just a mechanical list of armor proficiencies. There is also no restriction against metal armor − merely a statement that the Druid base class doesnt supply it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I want to approach this from a different angle, just as a thought experiment if you will.

You described touching the metal armor thusly "touching the metal armor made the druid feel uncomfortable, as if she was holding the slick carcass of a rotting fish." and then followed it with "it made her skin crawl, as if she were wearing something lifeless ungraved from the earth"

Your intent with this was to convey how the worked metal felt wrong and disgusting to the druid, correct?

Not exactly. My intent was to remind the player that the rules would prohibit the activity he was declaring for his druid. I wanted to do this in a way that didn't break the fourth wall, and when that didn't work, I called a break to discuss it.

So, in your world where mined and worked metal feels like a rotting carcass to a druid, then this would be accurate for a later scene.

"You walk into the dragon's hoard room and nearly vomit. The floor is littered with gold and silver that feel like rotting eyeballs slickly rolling around on the floor. The touch of it is like being in a charnal house, and your entire body shudders and rejects the sensation. You pick a magical scimitar, and it feels like you are holding a rotting limb."

After all, gold and silver are worked metal. If you had a shield made of gold, it would be a metal shield, so if it is the material itself that feels wrong... then druids would reject metal of all types. Coins, metal objects, bracelets, weapons they are proficient in, it'd make their spellcasting a little harder, spells like Reverse Gravity require them to have iron if they aren't using a focus, Not sure how to have a gem-encrusted bowl worth 1,000 gp if it isn't made of precious metals. Maybe it is made from some stone like jade...

That's a pretty awesome way to carry that theme forward, sure. But there are no rules that state "a druid will not carry metal coins," so there wouldn't be much of a need for me to remind the player of the rules.

Which is a point, isn't it. Some people say that the "no metal armor" rule is because of mining. Evil mining that destroys the environment, so druids reject metal armor.

So, why do they have no issue with gemstones? In fact, druidic magic requires gemstones, which have to be mined. Same with the Jade that makes the circlet for Shapechange.

So, do you keep consistent with your descriptions? Is the druid constantly assaulted every time they pick up a metal weapon, use gold to pay for anything, enter a fire giant's hall made of metal... or did you only include this description this one time to convince them not to wear metal armor, and that alone?

Honestly I don't think the issue is that it is worked metal...after all, the druid is proficient with several weapons that have metal components, and there is no restriction for the druid using hunting traps, ball bearings, or any other metal equipment. But the rules do say that a druid won't wear metal armor or use a metal shield, specifically. Maybe it's more about faith and belief, that no druid would rely on metal for protection but would seek safety through other means? The rule doesn't come with any fluff, so it could be just about anything. It might even vary from druid to druid, and enclave to enclave.

Knowing then what I know now, I would have discussed this with the player at Session Zero. Maybe have this conversation:

"So, Chuck. You are going to play a druid, right? Excellent, that's a good choice. Listen, the rules say that druids will not wear metal armor or use metal shields. Why does your druid feel that way? What is it about metal armor and metal shields that prevents your druid from wearing it?" and then take notes.

If Chuck says "Well you see, this druid is super-special and unique and that particular rule doesn't apply because Reasons," I'd need to have a very different conversation, one about following the rules as written vs. creating a house-rule.

 

[Yaarel]

What?! No! Since when? Nobody's agreeing that Druids don't have proficiency with 'metal' armor that's not at all the question?! Most people?? The question is wether the text "a Druid will not wear an armor made of metal" is rule or fluff.

The Druid is nonproficient with metal armor. A breastplate made out of a hypothetical adamant crystal (like made out of sapphire or ruby) is proficient. But a metal breastplate, no.

The penalty for nonproficiency would be no spellcasting.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Sure, they can do those things, but they probably won't. They're not incentivised to do so. They gain no particular benefit from hundreds of iron chains or from a iron staff. They however gain significant benefit from metal armour. Please understand, that a world where druids can wear metal armour is a world where all druids will wear metal armour.

And how is that a bad thing, given that those worlds where Druids can't wear metal armour are worlds where they can use metal weapons, wear metal jewelry, use metal spellcasting components, carry metal currency, and do pretty much anything related to metal with no issue?

Basically, everything that was said below:

I want to approach this from a different angle, just as a thought experiment if you will.

You described touching the metal armor thusly "touching the metal armor made the druid feel uncomfortable, as if she was holding the slick carcass of a rotting fish." and then followed it with "it made her skin crawl, as if she were wearing something lifeless ungraved from the earth"

Your intent with this was to convey how the worked metal felt wrong and disgusting to the druid, correct?


So, in your world where mined and worked metal feels like a rotting carcass to a druid, then this would be accurate for a later scene.

"You walk into the dragon's hoard room and nearly vomit. The floor is littered with gold and silver that feel like rotting eyeballs slickly rolling around on the floor. The touch of it is like being in a charnal house, and your entire body shudders and rejects the sensation. You pick a magical scimitar, and it feels like you are holding a rotting limb."

After all, gold and silver are worked metal. If you had a shield made of gold, it would be a metal shield, so if it is the material itself that feels wrong... then druids would reject metal of all types. Coins, metal objects, bracelets, weapons they are proficient in, it'd make their spellcasting a little harder, spells like Reverse Gravity require them to have iron if they aren't using a focus, Not sure how to have a gem-encrusted bowl worth 1,000 gp if it isn't made of precious metals. Maybe it is made from some stone like jade...

Which is a point, isn't it. Some people say that the "no metal armor" rule is because of mining. Evil mining that destroys the environment, so druids reject metal armor.

So, why do they have no issue with gemstones? In fact, druidic magic requires gemstones, which have to be mined. Same with the Jade that makes the circlet for Shapechange.

So, do you keep consistent with your descriptions? Is the druid constantly assaulted every time they pick up a metal weapon, use gold to pay for anything, enter a fire giant's hall made of metal... or did you only include this description this one time to convince them not to wear metal armor, and that alone?

The archetype is inconsistently applied; and I'll go so far as to say that it doesn't make sense to begin with. Is metal ore any less natural than animal hide or wood? Is metalworking any less natural than tanning leather or carving wood?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not it's not akin. All of these have specific impact. There is no penalty for the Druid who decides "screw it, I'm wearing half-plate today!"

But they won't do that. Because druids will not wear armour made of metal. Thus the question of what happens if they do is meaningless.

So... Houserule it? Like I said, this so called "rule" just seems to exist to create house rules.

Its not a houserule, it's merely me elaborating the justification of the rule. The actual rule is that certain armours explicitly say that they're made out of metal and studded leather is not one of them.

 

[Undrave]

Sure, they can do those things, but they probably won't. They're not incentivised to do so. They gain no particular benefit from hundreds of iron chains or from a iron staff. They however gain significant benefit from metal armour. Please understand, that a world where druids can wear metal armour is a world where all druids will wear metal armour.

If you don't want Druid in metal armor, and I totally support that... then don't give them proficiency with them as a basic class feature... If that was the intent they went about it totally the wrong way.

 

[Yaarel]

Proficiencies are not material based. Druid are proficient with all light/medium armors and shield, regardless of what they are made of. They simply won't wear those made of metal.

Removing proficiency bonus for doing so can make sense, but it's not a rule written or even intended when they discussed it in Sage Advice.

In the case of the Druid class, the armor proficiency is explicitly material based. No metal.

Otherwise, the proficiency would have said, "light armor and hide armor". But other armors are proficient, as long as they are not metal.

 

[Undrave]

But they won't do that. Because druids will not wear armour made of metal. Thus the question of what happens if they do is meaningless.

Why won't they do that?

 

[Remathilis]

But it IS wrong to enforce such a cosmetic element of archetype in the context of a game where every other character in the game is given near-total roleplay freedom on things more serious than a fabric, and even mechanical limitations can be overcome with feats or multiclassing, but not this one if the DM chooses to treat it as a hard rule instead of fluff. Even moreso nowadays that they're campaigning against alignments for races being too strict, restricting druid armors by material strides with everything else!

Why do rogues have to use finesse weapons to sneak attack? Why do all barbarians need to use strength weapons to rage? Why can't monks use martial arts in armor? Why can't wizards learn healing magic? Why can I have draconic blood magic and make pacts with devils but not vice versa? Why are paladins held to oaths but not clerics? You get the idea. At a certain point, you accept it's part of the class system and learn to live with it OR opt for a classless system for Max freedom.