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

[carkl3000]

Which temporary hit points? Do you interpret it to mean that if a Shepherd Druid uses their Unicorn Totem to give the Spores Druid THP, the Spores Druid loses Symbiotic Entity? Because either one or the other of the following is true;

• THP is THP, and as long as you have THP continuously an effect based on THP lasts.
• You lose Symbiotic Entity the moment a second source gives you THP.

That should work, sure.

Yeah... I don't know if it's correct, but the way I read it, you have to choose your source of THP, they're not additive. I think a Spores Druid who was within range of Unicorn Totem could choose to reject the THP and keep their symbiotic entity up, or they could let symbiotic entity go down and take THP from another source. I don't know though. That's just the way I read it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The inclusion of the the word "these" in the phrase "until you lose all these temporary hit points" suggests to me that Symbiotic Entity only stays up if you still have the temp HP you got from activating it. So under that ruling if you choose to accept temp HP from another source, Symbiotic Entity drops.

Are there any other subclasses that are tied to gaining and keeping temp HP that we could use as a comparison?

I think that is a wild interpretation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah... I don't know if it's correct, but the way I read it, you have to choose your source of THP, they're not additive. I think a Spores Druid who was within range of Unicorn Totem could choose to reject the THP and keep their symbiotic entity up, or they could let symbiotic entity go down and take THP from another source. I don't know though. That's just the way I read it.

THP definitely isn’t additive, but I don’t think that ruling fits RAW or RAI, personally.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I think that is a wild interpretation.

Still looking, so far I've only seen this same question come up on RPG Stackexchange, the D&D Beyond forums, and /r/dndnext, but every answer to this question I've seen so far supports my read of it. Still looking.

 

[DammitVictor]

And 'Class' is a discreet package of abilities used to build a character. They should not be a straightjacket to force the player to play a particular character. How much a player wants to engage with the flavor text tied to the class should be up to them.

Says you! Says a lot of people, actually, but that's a personal belief that isn't validated by any external authority, and it runs contrary to how large numbers of other people want to play the game-- hence all the conversation over which D&D setting should be the "default setting" next time. Do note, please, that all of them impose the same restrictions on druid armor.

The 5e Player's Handbook, on the other hand, says:

Class is the primary definition of what your character can do. It's more than a profession; it's your character's calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse.

How convenient, then, that anything you disagree with in the rulebooks doesn't count.

As for the argument about the 'rule' and divine characters: Godless clerics have been around forever. Druids don't even have a god in core. You never need to actually be in contact with a warlock's patron or even be aware of their existence.

Funny, I didn't say a thing about "gods"! I said all of these classes have ethical restrictions that derive from the same source as their powers. (Technically, Warlock doesn't; I was holding it up as an example of a class that should.)

 

[Undrave]

Sure, a situation can happen where the player declares that they're not following the rules of the game, not that it has ever happened to me in real life.

So I would have just done a timeout with the player and tell them that: it's a taboo to wear armor for druids, when you pick this up you realize it's metal so you won't wear it unless you want to no longer be a druid. I've never hit this situation but there are (incredibly rare) times when I have to remind players what the rules are. On the few times it's come up there wasn't any real pushback other than to perhaps clarify.

If it's a taboo, it's a rule of the world, not a rule of the game. If it's a rule of the world, then a character is fully capable of BREAKING THAT RULE if they so choose.

If the game provides no mechanical lever to prevent a Druid from using their entire proficiency, then it should be a narrative lever.

 

[DammitVictor]

If it's a taboo, it's a rule of the world, not a rule of the game. If it's a rule of the world, then a character is fully capable of BREAKING THAT RULE if they so choose.

If the game provides no mechanical lever to prevent a Druid from using their entire proficiency, then it should be a narrative lever.

The narrative lever is that it says a Druid will not wear metal armor. Wearing armor doesn't make them an ex-druid, but they have to stop being a druid before they can wear metal armor. It's crappy, and I'd sure as hell change it, but it's not unclear.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Still looking, so far I've only seen this same question come up on RPG Stackexchange, the D&D Beyond forums, and /r/dndnext, but every answer to this question I've seen so far supports my read of it. Still looking.

Have fun?

 

[carkl3000]

For me? The mariner's armor may have actually been made of fish scales. But the real issue is how much you wan to be a stickler for rules. The rule, to me, is simple. It has nothing to do with proficiency, it's a taboo.

So I would have just done a timeout with the player and tell them that: it's a taboo to wear armor for druids, when you pick this up you realize it's metal so you won't wear it unless you want to no longer be a druid. I've never hit this situation but there are (incredibly rare) times when I have to remind players what the rules are. On the few times it's come up there wasn't any real pushback other than to perhaps clarify.

How easy you want alternative armor to be is up to the DM and group. Wooden shields I have no problem with (although they'd have a chance to break if not magical), I would say that exotic material armor would be similar to adamantine or mithral. Difficult, but not impossible to purchase in my campaign.

That's fine, but my real question was about a different situation. If you had a character that was proficient with medium armor and using (for instance) scale mail, and you just happened to level the party up and your soon-to-be druid wanted to maintain the AC they've had all game, would you 1) nerf the druid, 2) interrupt your story arc to get the druid the armor they want, 3) drop some armor after the next fight, 4) let them continue wearing scale mail until it's convenient to make a change or 4) other. I don't want to judge. I'm just curious what you think about it.

 

[lingual]

What happens if a Paladin of Redemption goes around cutting off the hands and feet of peasants and fashions a necklace out of them? There really are no explicit penalties or consequences. Just suggestions. Would a DM who objects to that behavior be a tyrant who is removing player agency with a straightjacket?