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

[Vaalingrade]

No one likes to get hit, Phoenix. Since when is wanting good AC somehow a bad thing?!

Seeking mechanical advantage is often used as shorthand to imply that one isn't a true roleplayer vs being a rollplayer and is just a backhanded insult that can be easily ignored.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

So you're saying that he's the druid class with all the druid abilities and spells, but not a druid at the same time? Because he wouldn't lose a single class ability or even be inhibited in those abilities by the armor. There's no sidebar like paladins get explaining what happens for violating their oath. An oath by the way is stronger language than, "Won't wear metal armor." If paladins can violate their oath, druids can violate their choice not to wear armor, and with no penalty!

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.

I guess other druids might not consider him one while his armor is on. He wouldn't cease to be the druid class, though.

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."

Nope. They would have said that as well. Their lack of putting in such language in either the PHB lore or lore clarification means that no such penalty exists.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope.

Sage Advice: Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it.

Yes, this is an explanation why they won't wear metal armour, it in no way or form make that 'won't' into 'will.'

If it is a choice, then it is something that I can choose. If I can choose to change what I wear, then nothing prevents me from doing so.

It is a choice. You made that choice when you decided to become a druid. Druids won't wear metal armour. That is the rule. The Sage Advice also explicitly tells that allowing to ignore this limitation is for the GM to decide, not something the player can unilaterally do.

So druids wearing non-metal armors are required to get magical armors?

That is an option that exists currently in the rules without the GM homebrewing anything. And I don't think it is particularly unreasonable. Low level magic items tend not to be that hard to get.

Or are you saying that because in the DMG they say magical gear can be made out of strange materials that the PHB contains breastplate made out of bones?

No.

Because that is somehow bad? It doesn't make druids any less druidic. I know. I've been playing where druids can wear metal armor if they want for years, people barely even notice. Because the druid is defined by their beliefs and actions, not by some random restriction that their shield must be made from the heartwood of a tree instead of from steel, because somehow that is better and more natural.

Not wearing metal armour is part of the classic D&D druid imagery and I like it, as apparently did the people who wrote the PHB. You don't need to like that, and you can housserule things like your GM apparently did.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Seeking mechanical advantage is often used as shorthand to imply that one isn't a true roleplayer vs being a rollplayer and is just a backhanded insult that can be easily ignored.

Well, the counterargument to that is that you can do both, right? Actually trying to do one at the expense of the other is unironically playing into the stereotype that supposedly isn't true.

 

[TwoSix]

Huh, that's an interesting rule.

Monk Unarmored or Barbarian unarmored?

10+Dex+relevant stat to the class (not Str or Dex). If they trade in heavy armor, shield use is allowed, like Barbarian. Otherwise, no shield use, like Monk.

 

[Maxperson]

True. The players can wear what they want. Rules however prevent druid characters from wearing metal armour.

Where? Not one word in the druid section prevents such a thing. There is no "can't" with regard to metal armor.

You're massively misinterpreting the sage advice. Crawford at no point says it is not a rule, they merely explain why it is a rule.

Let's see...

"Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. 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. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."

So the first bolded part says taboo, not rule. A taboo is not a rule. The second bolded part clearly says it's part of the class story. Story = lore. The third bolded part says very clearly that it's a preference to wear non-metal armor. A preference is a choice, not a rule. The fourth bolded part flat out tells you that it's a choice, which means that it is not a requirement and nothing prevents the druid from putting it on. I've known vegetarians to occasionally break that taboo, so the fifth bolded portion also indicates that it can be broken. The sixth bolded portion literally says the druid can wear metal armor. The sixth bolded portion also clearly says this is a lore feature of the class by literally equating it to story. It also says that a DM could take away the class if he wanted to, but that's not in question. A draconian DM could always do that. DMs can create whatever house rules they want.

At no point, though, is it ever a rule. It's lore and story, not rule. The DM has to enact a rule in order to remove the class.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But first, I want to briefly address something no one has brought up regarding the argument @Yaarel is making that druids lack proficiency in metal armor. Based only on the PHB, this is not as absurd as it appears. Here's what page 45 says:

View attachment 141609

Good find. Bumping this and putting it into text as the image seems to get reduced to a link when quoting:

PHB page 45, Classes chart, Druid Armor and Weapon Proficiencies:
Light and medium armor (nonmetal), shields (nonmetal), clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, spears

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is no rules against a druid wearing metal armor.

'Druids will not wear metal armour' That is the rule! I literally cannot understand where the difficulty is. If your character has a rule 'Will not do X' then them doing X is against the rules. This must truly be the bizarrest attempt at rules lawyering I have ever seen; simply claiming that words don't mean things.

 

[Maxperson]

No! It is a rule, that exists because of a story element. That there is fluff explanation for the existence of the rule doesn't stop it being a rule!
(Also, sage advice is not rules to begin with.)

Also, let's not omit this bit:

Sage Advice: 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.

I.e. it is a rule, and you need GM's permission to ignore it.

That's a ruling, not a rule. A rule is, "Any druid that wears metal armor loses their class and becomes an X of the same level." If the DMs have to decide on an individual basis for their game, there's no rule in place. There's simply strong story behind it and the DM can make a ruling(put in a house rule) that removes the class. No such rule exists in RAW, though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since a druid can choose to wear metal armor, as stated directly by the designers of the game

No, they don't state that, they state the opposite. Druids choose to no wear metal armour. Like vegans choose not to eat meat. There is no indication that they could choose otherwise and remain druids or vegans, except the later stipulation that basically amounts to 'GM can change the rules if they want,' which we all of course already know.