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

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is getting …. Awesome!

I am hopeful that by post 2000, we will be discussing what is, or isn’t real metal.

Ozzy, or John Denver?

 

[Maxperson]

This is getting …. Awesome!

I am hopeful that by post 2000, we will be discussing what is, or isn’t real metal.

Ozzy, or John Denver?

Anything glam, obviously.

 

[carkl3000]

Because no one's forced to play a particular character (or a particular game)?

Like, if a Druid not being willing to wear metal armor was such a non-starter for me playing one and I couldn't convince my DM to let me get around that in any way, shape, or form acceptable to me, I'd just... not play a Druid.

If I happened to only want to a play a Druid, but Druids not being willing to wear metal armor was still a non-starter for me- and I couldn't convince my DM to let me get around that- I'd either find another DM or just... not play.

I think most everyone in this thread would agree with all of this. I think most would also feel like it was a weird hill to die on.

 

[Faolyn]

Exactly. That is why "metal armor" obviously refers specifically to pure elemental metal like Iron or Titanium.

No, it really, really doesn't.

There is no naturally occuring pure iron that can be pulled out of the ground

In D&Dland, why not?

The Iron we get from Iron mines comes from hemitite or magnetite and the iron has to be extracted through a blast furnace.

Even if you accept that alloy doesn't equal metal in D&D, this is far too processed for any druid to want.

If the venom did poison damage

D&D has "poisonous snakes" that inflict "poison" with their bite. What do you think?

 

[Faolyn]

Yep. Steel and such are metals in 5e, which uses the common usage of words. If you go out and ask 100 people if steel is a metal, you're going to get 99 yeses and 1 chemist.

I think what ECMO3 needs to realize is just because not some metal alloys aren't actually metal (high-quality aluminum oxide, for one), it doesn't mean that the metal used in making armor isn't actual metal.

 

[Maxperson]

I think what ECMO3 needs to realize is just because not some metal alloys aren't actually metal (high-quality aluminum oxide, for one), it doesn't mean that the metal used in making armor isn't actual metal.

I don't think we even need to get that detailed. In D&D metals and alloys are metals. End of thought process.

 

[J.Quondam]

I think what ECMO3 needs to realize is just because not some metal alloys aren't actually metal (high-quality aluminum oxide, for one), it doesn't mean that the metal used in making armor isn't actual metal.

I figured they just intended to reunite the warring factions in the thread and bring peace to ENWorld once again, all by offering up an unabashedly ridiculous interpretation of the rule.

Ad unita per absurdo!​

*Please excuse my shoddy Latin. Blame google translate.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's a feeble argument, even for this thread. Proficiencies are binary in the sense that you either have it or you don't, but the armor proficiency isn't in the sense that it applies to multiple kinds of armor. The druid can wear hide right out of the basic rules and use that proficiency. Not being able to use metal versions of the other armors isn't identical to the proficiency being removed at all. Add in the DMG and you've got dragon scale armor. And that's before you start delving into other non-metal armors that may be available in 3rd party materials or might be filled by future products.

Crimson said "No one is denied their proficiencies. They simply may not be able to utilize them fully." I am simply pointing out that not being able to use your proficiency is identical to being denied it. They don't do anything else other than let you use the armor without penalty.

If all they wanted was the druid to be proficient in was light and hide, they could have done that. If they wanted them to still be able to use Dragon Scale, they could have added a line about druids being proficient in that armor. And as far as official content that exists, that is it. If we need to start talking about 3pp materials, then we are showing that there is a severe lack of support here for something that is so important that it must deny the player the right to decide their character's beliefs and priorities.

Which, isn't really surprising. Druids and Monks both have restrictions based on equipment, and are both starved for any sort of support in that arena.

But this is all an aside. Druids are proficient in metal medium armor, per the rules on their full character write up. Per the Sage Advice. The only restriction is that they are forced by DMs to have no free will when it comes to the concept of picking up a metal shield, or putting on metal armor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't have issue with them wearing non-metal armours, but yes, for consistent world building reasons non-metal armours that offer equal protection than metal armours cannot be particularly common if you want classic medieval fantasy setting where metal armour is widely used. So such high-tier non-metal medium armour must be somewhat rare, perhaps even magical. And that's is perfectly fine. Seriously, many classes don't get any armour at all, the druids are not unfairly punished.

"many classes" being the Monk (who has an ability specifically to account for lacking armor) the Wizard (one of the most powerful classes in the game, with two subclasses that give them increased AC and has a long-term AC bump and a 1 off AC spell bump [mage armor and shield]) and the Sorcerer (who is identical to the wizard, and has a subclass that gives them a permanet AC buff)

Huh, I wonder if that indicates something...


But, moving on... so convenient isn't it? For consistent world-building reasons non-metal armors that make you safer against spells like heat metal or shocking grasp, that don't require heavy mining, and that can be made from the hides and shells of commonly and naturally occurring creautres in a fantasy world, must be rare. Because we have to all play in a classic medieval fantasy setting.

And, if we don't? If say we play in a world like.... the Forgotten Realms that is clearly full of fantastical elements and anachronisms all over the place. Like hand crossbows. Which are in every town and city all over the place. Or maybe spyglasses, which again are pretty easily found in any city, but were barely invented by the end of the medieval period. Advanced glassmaking to have things like hourglasses and the ubiquitous glass flasks that are every.

But, we don't want to have a city selling armor made form monster parts. I mean, it isn't like the medieval people had a long tradition of using all the parts of the animals they killed, leading to things like scrimshaw. I mean, that would be unrealistic, and as the DM, you can't let DnD be unrealistic just to benefit the players, like having a universal coinage that everyone follows exactly. It just has to be how the rules work. Can't let one persons preference dictate how the world works... well, unless they are the DM, and then they don't have a choice, a classic setting has to be run a certain way no matter what.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No this is terrible if it is not meant to be binding. If it is just a choice, it literally mechanically rewards you for going against the theme. You can either be a traditional druid... or not and get better AC. It's like if monk martial arts worked with all weapons and all armours, gave them proficiency with such, and then just in parenthesis noted what the traditional monk weapons are and that monks traditionally wear no armour.

Yes, it gives players a choice.

If they care about the themes and want to follow those traditions, then they will do so. I've literally seen players throw themselves into impossible fights just to follow their character's ideals. For a person who cares about druids having this restriction, nothing is going to stop them from following it.

And if the players don't care.... then why in the ever-loving heck would we want to force them to follow a theme they couldn't care less about? Just to make you happy that they were playing their character "properly"?