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

[Maxperson]

When it comes to taboos and the (silly IMHO) scenario where a druid has to wear metal armor to save the world ... I have a story.

TLDR version: I don't think making light of religious beliefs should be part of the game.

Longer version:
Long ago in a galaxy ... um .... edition far far away in a campaign called Living Greyhawk, I played a paladin. Yep, lawful good, gung-ho, firmly leaning in to the trope. Imagine The Tick as a paladin. Never forced anyone else to go along with him, although he would voice his opinion if he disagreed. Most of the group was pretty like minded so it wasn't a big deal.

Then we had a mod where we were supposed to literally choose between helping a demon or a devil. No other choice was given, it felt like a giant middle finger to anyone who ran a PC who would rather die with honor than help either one. The DM had pity on us and gave us a third option that was just higher risk which I was okay with.

Now, this was a module and it wasn't the DM's fault. However, if it had been the DM's idea to do this I would have had a major problem with it for that particular PC. Other PCs I ran it wouldn't have been as big of an issue but the mod was asking my paladin to break his vows, to do something he swore he would never do.

To some DMs that may be a "moral dilemma". To me? It was an artificial scenario scripted specifically to be a giant f*** you and the horse you rode in on*. Screw anyone who takes their PC's vows seriously.

If I was playing a druid and I took my taboo against wearing metal armor seriously, I would feel the same way. While I'm going to plead the 5th on personal religious beliefs or lack therein, people's faith is not something to f*** around with just because you can. The DM would have to knowingly set up this very specific scenario in an attempt to force someone to ignore a taboo, a very fundamental part of their belief system. I don't think it's okay to make lightly of religious beliefs like that.

In any case I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread other than the occasional fishing for laughs. I was just thinking about how I hadn't really explained why I think forcing a druid to wear metal armor should ever be a thing.

*My paladin's horse's name was Snert BTW and because the way 3.5 worked Snert was eventually smarter than my paladin.

My style of DMing is to create situations and let the players come up with solutions. A few possible solutions might just occur to me as I craft the situation, but I long ago gave up trying to figure out what the players will do. Usually they came up with things I didn't think of anyway.

So I might have a situation where nature might end if the PCs don't stop it, but I'm not going to set it up so that the way to solve it is to get into metal armor. However, if the best solution the players come up with is to get into plate armor and the druids player says to me, "With so much riding on this I grit my teeth and put the foul metal around my body." I'm going to let him do itm. It's HIS character, not mine.

 

[Oofta]

My style of DMing is to create situations and let the players come up with solutions. A few possible solutions might just occur to me as I craft the situation, but I long ago gave up trying to figure out what the players will do. Usually they came up with things I didn't think of anyway.

So I might have a situation where nature might end if the PCs don't stop it, but I'm not going to set it up so that the way to solve it is to get into metal armor. However, if the best solution the players come up with is to get into plate armor and the druids player says to me, "With so much riding on this I grit my teeth and put the foul metal around my body." I'm going to let him do itm. It's HIS character, not mine.

But that's not your proposed scenario. It was "wear it or the world ends".

What can I say. I don't put PCs into no win scenarios and don't want to spend my time in a campaign that does.

If the choice is between demon, devil and some other solution that requires a different sacrifice or greater risk I'm okay with it.

For many people breaking a taboo is called "Friday night". For others it's making light of deeply held beliefs because the DM doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration.

 

[J.Quondam]

For many people breaking a taboo is called "Friday night". For others it's making light of deeply held beliefs because the DM doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration.

On the other hand, why bother integrating deeply held beliefs into the game via features like oaths or vows if they're not going to be challenged? If that's not your thing, cool. But for many players, that's the whole point of those kinds of characters. Presenting such challenges in no way means the GM "doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration".
Jeez, not everyone has nefarious intentions.

 

[carkl3000]

But that's not your proposed scenario. It was "wear it or the world ends".

What can I say. I don't put PCs into no win scenarios and don't want to spend my time in a campaign that does.

If the choice is between demon, devil and some other solution that requires a different sacrifice or greater risk I'm okay with it.

For many people breaking a taboo is called "Friday night". For others it's making light of deeply held beliefs because the DM doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration.

Respectfully, my take away from the story is that you had a DM that let you play your character the way you wanted to even though it was inconvenient for the material he was running. That's a cool DM.

(I also wonder how it was that there were only two choices. There's clearly more to the story, but why not try to play one against the other and take them both down, or something else?)

 

[Remathilis]

On the other hand, why bother integrating deeply held beliefs into the game via features like oaths or vows if they're not going to be challenged? If that's not your thing, cool. But for many players, that's the whole point of those kinds of characters. Presenting such challenges in no way means the GM "doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration".
Jeez, not everyone has nefarious intentions.

I mean, within reason.

Not every paladin wants too face existential angst or the moral dilemma constantly. Sometimes a paladin just wants to kick butt for goodness.

 

[J.Quondam]

I mean, within reason.

Not every paladin wants too face existential angst or the moral dilemma constantly. Sometimes a paladin just wants to kick butt for goodness.

Indeed, that's pretty obvious... and why I noted that "not everyone has nefarious intentions."
And I mean-- equally obviously-- "within reason" applies all around the table.
Trust. Yep?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, it definitely is in the world building territory. D&D classes are thematic archetypes and come with certain amount of implied setting. So I certainly can understand if someone wants to change things for some specific settings. But I feel the default druid should remain thematically representative of the classic D&D druid.


Depends on the fluff of the setting. My default answer would be no, but I can imagine some setting where yes would make more sense and reinforce the themes of the world. My current setting has no dwarves, nor iron, nor is anyone playing a druid, so it is not super relevant at the moment.

So, it's a no. Even if you interpret it as them being non-proficient, you wouldn't allow the player to make the choice to gain proficiency and use it, unless it "fit the themes of your world". Which of course can be used to justify or eliminate basically anything in the rules as the DM sees fit.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If it is such a minor thing, why you must have it?

I actually care about the thematic and visual implications of the gear.

Because the "rule" doesn't make any sense. I've said that about three dozen times. And it is never going to be that they make druids not use any metal at all. Because that breaks down the game to such a degree that it would be far too much of a burden.

I care about consistent themes. Saying that a druid won't pick up a metal shield, but will use a metal weapon and wear metal decorations and all the rest makes no sense. It is inconsistent. And a person who understands what "natural" is understands that metal is just as natural as anything else Druids are using, so the restriction twice over makes no sense.

And I care about that.

 

[Umbran]

View attachment 141684
(1e PH)

As far as I can tell, you are having your own little argument that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Since you're so busy arguing against a book, instead of the person actually writing here, I'll just leave you to it. Have fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think you are rather badly mis-characterizing the PHB. That book is designed to represent traditional D&D realities - vaguely European, dark ages to early Renaissance, pseudo-feudalism, heroic fantasy stuff. When WotC wants to deviate from that, they have to put out an entire book to handle it. So, yeah, not all realities are covered by the core game. And that's okay.

I think you are underestimating how much heavy lifting the PHB does.

There are twelve classes in the PHB, out of 13 official classes. For the past seven years that has been all we have. If I want something that is sort of like a druid but not a "traditional D&D reality" Druid, then my best bet as a player is to start with a druid as my base, and build from their.

A lot can be done with reflavoring. But somehow we have to maintain the purity of the single ideal (which doesn't even make sense) and not allow for a reflavored druid to use a metal shield. Or a Star Druid to use meteoric iron. Or a Wildfire druid who is a blacksmith and their spirit likes nesting in the smithy (embracing more the idea of fire than wildfires) or a Land Druid who made armor out of the heart of their sacred mountain, or a different land druid who spent their time mining in the underdark. Or a Dream Druid who was knighted by a Fey Court and given a set of armor (Background: Knight)

I can go on and on and on, concepts that already exist in the game, archetypes that make perfect sense, and yet are forbidden because "the traditional druid doesn't wear armor". Well the traditional cleric doesn't draw blood, but we've got no restrictions saying clerics can't draw blood. A traditional Paladin doesn't lie, but the choice to break that oath and lie is something within the player's purview. Traditional Barbarian hated magic and destroyed any magical items they came across, now we have Barbarians fueled by different types of magic.

You want to play a traditional druid? Happiness and Peace to you. But I shouldn't be forced to not play a class I greatly enjoy, because my concepts aren't "traditional". Or go begging the DM every single time I try and make a character and hope that they won't dig in their heels and deny me that chance, just because they think I'm powergaming and ruining the purity of the themes of the game.