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

[carkl3000]

The railroading is what I was responding to - the scenario that was proposed was that the druid either ignore a taboo and wear metal armor or the world ends. I wouldn't want to play with a DM that pulled that kind of stuff.

But what if everything was shifted around a little. Like, what if (bear with me, this is still a contrived and spur of the moment example) the mission is to close an interdimensional portal that the bbeg intended to use to bring about the end of the world. The portal emits energy that would kill any creature that gets too close. The only way to close it is to walk up to it and smash the artifact that created the portal. There is an enchanted metal shield that will protect the wielder from this energy. The GM didn't intend to force the druid in the party to be the one who used the shield to approach the artifact to save the world, but it just so happens that all the other party members have fallen.

I think that a valid choice is to allow the druid to use the shield to save the world. Do you? I also would be impressed with a player that would choose not to use the shield because they think their character is that adamant about the taboo of their order and try to find another solution whatever that might be.

 

[Maxperson]

No one is denied their proficiencies. They simply may not be able to utilise them fully. There are two rules about this in the PHB. Page 45 says druids are not proficient in metal armour page 65 says they won't use metal armour. If we take both at the face value, druids are not proficient in metal armour and won't use it even if they were. Now Crawford's clarification tells us at only 'won't' was intended, thus the page 45 is a misleading summary. He also tells that a player needs and explicit GM permission to ignore this 'won't.' So that's the actual rules, like it or not.

That isn't what Crawford said. He said that the player needs permission if he wants to change the story of the druid. Wearing metal armor as an exception doesn't change the story of metal armor being taboo. The story remains the same, so no permission is needed.

 

[Maxperson]

So you think it' would be okay in the real world to set up a scenario that forced someone to violate their most deeply held beliefs?

Nobody has suggested this. My first scenario merely said it was the best option to save the world. I have yet to see players CHOOSE a less than best option. That does not equal "forced," though.

I don't take people's convictions or beliefs lightly. Even pretend ones. I don't tell people that what their PC's firmly believe is something that can just be tossed aside because I, as the DM and the one who runs the universe and could have easily come up with some other alternative, decided to set up a Sophie's Choice scenario. I don't tell people that I think convictions and beliefs are just personal choice that they can tossed aside.

It's not a conviction unless it is tested and the PC upholds it. If it is never tested, it's just words on a sheet. The DM sets the stage, YOU choose whether to uphold the conviction or not. The DM cannot force you to set it aside.

 

[Maxperson]

Yea, but that sounds more like railroading and terrible module design than an actual problem with interrogating a character's beliefs.

I mean, if I have a character who has a tenet of "I never lie" and I never put them in a situation where telling the truth can cause actual collateral damage, I feel like I'm committing some kind of DM malpractice.

It's not malpractice to challenge a conviction. Sometimes there's no good choice, so you make the one your character would do and deal with the result.

Also, if a lie will help and a truth would hurt, don't do either. Just omit information. I don't believe in lies by omission. Omitting information may be a deception, but it isn't a lie or we wouldn't need two different words. Or maybe there's another option that could work.

 

[tetrasodium]

No one is denied their proficiencies. They simply may not be able to utilise them fully. There are two rules about this in the PHB. Page 45 says druids are not proficient in metal armour page 65 says they won't use metal armour. If we take both at the face value, druids are not proficient in metal armour and won't use it even if they were. Now Crawford's clarification tells us at only 'won't' was intended, thus the page 45 is a misleading summary. He also tells that a player needs and explicit GM permission to ignore this 'won't.' So that's the actual rules, like it or not.

And no, I don't need to try to justify my houserules in weird ways. For my current campaign I completely rewrote both the rules for races and fore armour.

You may not "need" to justify your house rules but it's a bit late to make that complaint after having it pointed out that you were dressing your house rule as simply being the rules. Consciously or not, onsome level you must realize that it crosses a line somewhere or you wouldn't l keep claiming it was just the rules.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So because you don't think a taboo is important, nobody can believe it's important? Gotcha.

I can't speak for @Chaosmancer, but I think that just because something is a taboo for some druids, it doesn't make any sense for it to be taboo for all druids (and by all druids, I mean the base druid class).

It's pretty "taboo"/nonstandard for 5e Wizards to risk going into melee combat and stabbing people with weapons . . . except for Bladesingers.

Undead/necromancy magic are typically taboo for Druids, but that didn't stop the Circle of Spores Druid from going all-in on the spooky theme.

It's taboo for Paladins to focus on necromantic energy, creating/controlling undead, and breaking their oaths . . . except for Oathbreakers.

It's pretty taboo for Warlocks that want good DPR to do anything besides spamming Eldritch Blast . . . expect for Hexblades (and a few other decent options for Pact of the Blade, like the new Undead Patron Warlock).

It's also pretty taboo for Warlocks to be support characters that buff party members . . . except for Celestial Patron Warlocks (and the new Pact of the Talisman option).

It's traditionally pretty taboo for Barbarians to use magic of any sort . . . except for Wild Magic Barbarians, Beast Barbarians, Ancestral Guardians Barbarians, Zealot Barbarians, Totem Warrior Barbarians, and Storm Herald Barbarians. There are more magical barbarian subclasses than nonmagical barbarian subclasses (Berserker and the Battlerager) in 5e now.

These taboos/important character tropes are just that character tropes. Not "every-member-of-this-class-must-obey-me" tropes. There are no "black and white" class taboos, except for this one strange, nonsensical Sacred Cow that somehow managed to survive its way into 5e. Going against the grain (typical character type) is just as valid of an option as being a stereotypical member of your class. Sure, most druids might have a taboo against wearing metal armor or using metal shields (in which case they should also have a taboo against metal weapons), however, there should be outliers, and the game's "rules" (it's fine if you want to call it that) should not force you to be incapable of going against the grain (by straight-up saying "druids won't do X". It's fine if there are penalties and trade-offs for doing so, too. Hexblades have to make trade-offs (invocations, attacks, force damage, etc) in order to be different, as do Bladesingers, as do Spores Druids, and every other example in the game.

Taboos should promote character ideas and stories, not be used as a barrier to players that want to play their interesting, non-standard ideas. However, having characters that subvert the taboos/typical tropes doesn't mean that the taboo isn't important, it just means that it isn't a roadblock to creativity for the people that made those characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a conviction unless it is tested and the PC upholds it

Yes, it is. What a strange claim.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Totem Warriors just straight up get spells, so they'd be in the magical side as well.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Totem Warriors just straight up get spells, so they'd be in the magical side as well.

I always forget about that! Fixed.

 

[J.Quondam]

So you think it' would be okay in the real world to set up a scenario that forced someone to violate their most deeply held beliefs?

To some people it's just a game, a stupid rule that can be ignored. For some it's something they identify with, can say that it's just like how some people are dismissive of their beliefs. For some, even if it's not personal they have empathy for those who's beliefs are belittled.

I don't take people's convictions or beliefs lightly. Even pretend ones. I don't tell people that what their PC's firmly believe is something that can just be tossed aside because I, as the DM and the one who runs the universe and could have easily come up with some other alternative, decided to set up a Sophie's Choice scenario. I don't tell people that I think convictions and beliefs are just personal choice that they can tossed aside.

There is no one true way, but if you can't understand how setting up a lose-lose scenario is not fun for everyone I don't know what to say.

No, and please, please, please stop telling me what I think. (I'm not a druid trying to wear metal armor in your game, lol.)

I was quite clear it's NOT okay to "force" someone to violate their beliefs, certainly not if the group doesn't agree to that sort of game. The table's social contract trumps all-- that's a huge part of the reason we do session zeros, after all! I've handled plenty of games in which players wanted to avoid certain topics, and completely respect their preferences. Not a problem, at all. But there is also absolutely nothing wrong with groups that do want to play tough choices utilizing mechanics built into the game itself.

Moreover, just because something like that comes up in a game, it does NOT mean it was forced by an RBDM. The game is interactive fiction, after all, and stories can and do arise organically. I've proposed several scene-level cases that seem reasonable to me. Some of them are completely controllable (and thus avoidable) by the GM, like domination or deception. I completely respect that some players don't want to go there. Cool, we wouldn't go there.

On the other hand, at least one of those scenes was entirely in the player's control, wasn't a contrived end-of-world scenario, and arose straight out of the mechanics and fiction:

The party has made some bad rolls in a fight. The druid finds himself disarmed, and outnumbered by a pack of ghouls. He is contemplating breaking the druidic stricture and use a discarded metal shield in order to better defend against these monsters, creatures which he has been raised to regard as abominations to nature.​

Yeah, that IS a tough "religious" choice in the game for the player. Stick to the no-metal vow? Or ignore it to more effectively fight the spiritual enemy? If the player doesn't want to go there, a good table has ways to respectfully deal with that. But a lot of players would find that interesting: it's a real choice of a sort not commonly encountered by that particular class. It's unknown territory in a tense situation; ie, it's the stuff of a good story.

So... I get that you don't like it as a player. Cool.
Are you comfortable running it as a GM for players who are fine with it?