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

[Maxperson]

If they dont wear, they never become proficient with it.

If they will never use a greatsword, they likewise will never be proficient with a greatsword.

There aren't two different versions of armor proficiency. Human fighters are not proficient in metal medium armor and non-metal medium armor as separate proficiencies, because chitin chainmail and metal chainmail are exactly the same to use, so medium armor proficiency covers both. Druids are fully capable of using any metal medium armor, because they are proficient. They just opt not to as fluff lore.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If they willingly put on metal armor, they are no longer a druid.

This is an extrapolation, and a houserule, not what’s in the actual book.

The actual text in the book is a fluff statement with no weight, and no way to enforce it without a houserule. A Druid won’t do the thing…ok, if I’m playing a straight PHB Druid with no alteration of the character concept, no differing concept of druids, no deviation from the default lore of classes whatsoever, which I would find incredibly odd and stifling, I…still have to generate a houserule to stop a Druid player from putting metal armor on.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

"Can", but won't; just as I "can" eat babies, but I won't.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an extrapolation, and a houserule, not what’s in the actual book.

The actual text in the book is a fluff statement with no weight, and no way to enforce it without a houserule. A Druid won’t do the thing…ok, if I’m playing a straight PHB Druid with no alteration of the character concept, no differing concept of druids, no deviation from the default lore of classes whatsoever, which I would find incredibly odd and stifling, I…still have to generate a houserule to stop a Druid player from putting metal armor on.

Yeah, this. If you say to a player “your character can’t wear that chain shirt because they’re a druid,” that’s a house rule because the “rule,” such as it is, says “will not,” not “can not.” To be consistent with what it says, you would have to say “your character won’t wear that chain shirt, because they’re a druid,” which is a clear violation of player agency. If you allow them to wear it but impose some sort of penalty for doing so, you preserve player agency, but you’re creating a house rule to do so (and to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that).

There are only two valid conclusions we can draw from these premises: either “druids will not wear heavy armor” isn’t a rule, or the rules of D&D 5e violate player agency. I can’t imagine the latter is the intent, especially given that Sage Advice clarifies that it’s just meant as a flavorful thing. Therefore I must conclude that it is not intended to be a rule.

 

[see]

...except that my druid isn't very religious. He's a philosophical druid, but not a pious one.

Cool, the class doesn't define an orthodoxy, it defines an orthopraxy. If he will wear metal armor, he's not a druid, because, as it is explicitly established by the rulebook text, druids won't wear metal armor. But he can believe whatever he likes.

Unless, again, the idea is that every single druid of every single race in every single world from Forgotten Realms where they worship gods to Dark Sun where the gods do not exist, have the same religion.

Well, whether it's the "same" religion or not (incidentally, is there any real-world religion where everybody agrees who is and who isn't a member?), they all have the exact same binding taboo.

You can complain it doesn't make sense, but, does it really make any less sense than every druid in the multiverse having the same other class features in common? Or the fact that every cleric has the same basic features in common? I mean, yes, it surely rankles more, but, make less sense?

This is an extrapolation, and a houserule,

The more accurate term would be "syllogism".

The major premise, given by the text of the Player's Handbook, is "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
The minor premise, given by the player, is "This character will wear armor or use shields made of metal."
The conclusion follows, "This character is not a druid."

The DM isn't enforcing anything or inflicting a penalty; it's just the inexorable result of cold Aristotelian logic. When the character became someone who would wear metal armor, he ceased to meet the definition of a druid, so he isn't one.

There are only two valid conclusions we can draw from these premises: either “druids will not wear heavy armor” isn’t a rule, or the rules of D&D 5e violate player agency. I can’t imagine the latter is the intent, especially given that Sage Advice clarifies that it’s just meant as a flavorful thing.

I would suggest that the directly on-point sentence of the Sage Advice Compendium answer is the sentence "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was just going to bite my tongue, but it's funny that I read your post here:

...and the first thing I thought was that I'm glad I don't have to play with a DM as toxic as this guy... but whatevs...

Making it personal with this kind of name-calling is not permitted. Please don’t do it again.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Look, I acknowledge that replying to all of your arguments by saying "you mean" and rephrasing them to support my position is... abusive.

If you think it’s abusive, DON’T DO IT.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Snipping everything that isn't admittedly and clearly abusive...

Nice backhand, Don‘t use it around here, thanks.

If you think a post is abusive, don’t respond to it. Report it.

 

[ad_hoc]

What I want to get at is how you feel about the player-agency issue in isolation from every other issue.

There are a lot of 'choices' a player could make that I simply wouldn't allow at my table. It's not taking away player agency, it's enforcing the social contract that everyone agreed to.

For example, if a player said "I go find the town merchant, kill them, and take their stuff." I would just say, no, you don't. Before we started the game everyone agreed to not play an evil character and part of the definition of that was doing this sort of stuff.

The same goes for attacking other party members. It's simply not allowed.

These actions are not resolved 'in game' or 'played out' they are just not allowed.

Let me remind everyone that the Sage Advice likens a Druid wearing metal armour to a vegetarian eating meat. It's a contradiction. It is impossible because it is a conflicting definition.

Choosing to create a Druid character is choosing not to wear metal armour. They are free to play a Nature Cleric if they want.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If they dont wear, they never become proficient with it.

If they will never use a greatsword, they likewise will never be proficient with a greatsword.

Proficiency has nothing to do with usage but training. In D&D 5E, you know how to use a weapon or tool you have been trained for, even if you never use it thereafter.

Most classes uses 10% or less of the weapons they're proficient with, if what you say was true, most classes would only be proficient with 2-3 weapons max ☺