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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

This is something I can't wrap my head around.

"If you don't want to conform to an antiquated idea that prevents you from playing the druid you want to play, just don't play a druid at all and play something else" How is this supposed to be a solution?

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Clerics, the class about following gods and their dogmas... has no rules written about what beliefs those characters must have. No where in the book does it say anything about what they have to believe. And it even leaves open the possibility that they don't believe in a god at all, and instead follow an ideal. I could play a cleric of Trickery who doesn't follow any gods at all, and is entirely powered by his beliefs in whatever the heck I say he believes in.

Paladins though, right? Everyone says paladins are restrictive. Well, sort of. Sure, if I play a devotion paladin then I have an oath. And that oath says things like I should always tell the truth. Or that I should be courageous (but also wise, funny how they added that in to soften the oath and make it more reasonable). Let's say I don't like that though. Let's say I want to lie... every other paladin subclass, eight of them, do not have a restriction on lying. I could play a paladin that is an unrepentant, compulsive liar, and never once break my oath.

But let us say that I absolutely must play a Devotion paladin, and a situation comes up where I feel like the most good would be done by lying. And I tell my DM I am going to lie. They... can't stop me. Nothing in the rules allows for them to step in and say "your character would not lie". In fact, they can't even take away my paladin powers, per the sidebar, because that is prefaced with "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance." As long as my paladin is broken up about the situation, and seeks to repent, then there is nothing the DM can really do, per the rules.

But the rules say that if a druid goes to pick up a metal shield, then the DM can, per the rules, tell me "No, your character would not pick up that shield. Your beliefs do not allow that."

And sure, if I have a problem with my DM completely taking away control of my character when it comes to a belief I don't agree with and find nonsensically stupid for a druid to even hold, then I can find a new DM... but that doesn't excuse the "rule". That doesn't mean it is okay for DMs to be given this carte blanche to force people to bow down to their vision of what my character should be. They can't do it for a cleric. They can't do it for a paladin. So why are they allowed to do it for a Druid?

 

[Maxperson]

But the rules say that if a druid goes to pick up a metal shield, then the DM can, per the rules, tell me "No, your character would not pick up that shield. Your beliefs do not allow that."

The rules don't actually say that...........anywhere. That's a fiction being perpetrated by the anti-metal armor folks. A DM who stops the druid is abusing his authority.

 

[ECMO3]

But the rules say that if a druid goes to pick up a metal shield, then the DM can, per the rules, tell me "No, your character would not pick up that shield. Your beliefs do not allow that."

This also bring up the example - what if you multiclass and you left your Druid "beliefs" behind. You still have your Druid levels, but your "beliefs" are completely different now than they were when you started. You are a necromancer now and your goals are to turn every wild animal out there into an improved undead version. You still have your Druid powers of course, and since you have training in medium armor you know how to use half plate. But your general attitude is "Puck Nature"!

Can the DM let me where it now?

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Actually it is worse than the proficiency being removed. Any character in the game, ANY ONE can wear ANY Armor. Except for Druid. A first level elf wizard can don plate if he wants even though he is NOT proficient in any armor at all, but a Druid who is proficient in scale can't don it!

What happens if my fighter in plate decides to multiclass to druid? Does he need to remove the Plate before he multiclasses? Better yet, what if he is a warforged and is literally made of metal? Are Warforged even allowed to play Druids? are warforged who have a metal body allowed to add other metal to it? What about Artificers with the armorer subclass, can they multiclass to Druids? The armor is part of their body, what happens when the character tells the DM he is multiclassing to Druid?

 

[lingual]

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"?

No one forcing anything here.

None of us know where any of us live. None of us can force any of us to do anything.

I suppose if we could, then it would get really ugly. Or maybe we would all realize how silly and inane this argument is.

I do suppose if all my players wanted metal armor druids and had even a fraction of the passion about it that you and some others do, then sure why not. It's a game. I'm sure everyone in real life would bend either way rather than disband a campaign (ostensibly forever because they act and behave as stubbornly as we do in this thread with accusations of tyranny and inability to read and probably a bunch other stuff that's been said here).

 

[lingual]

What's awesome about these 2k threads is the utter inability of us to acknowledge that...yes ...there are a lot of people (maybe even half) that disagree with me....hmm...maybe, just maybe, I'm not 100 percent correct in my righteousness in a game that is acknowledged by its creators to be governed by rulings and personal opinions.

Anyways. Keep it up!

 

[see]

What does "This character is not a Druid" even MEAN here? What are the impact of that on the game rules?

Ahah! Time for Druid Rules-As-Written syllogism #2:

Major Premise: Only druid PCs have the druid PC class features listed in the druid PC class description.
Minor Premise: This PC isn't a druid.
Conclusion: This PC doesn't have the druid PC class features listed in the druid PC class description.

After all, there's no provision in the RAW for "ex-druid" PCs retaining any of the class features of druids, so what else could the RAW answer be for a PC who isn't a druid than they're treated exactly like any other PC who isn't a druid? Characters who aren't druids don't have druid class features.

It is absolutely true that the game doesn't have any rules specifying consequences for druids wearing metal armor. That's rather my point; it means there's nothing offering an alternative to the lose-all-druid-class-features logic. RAW, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". If your PC will, you've demonstrated your PC is not a druid. If a PC isn't a druid, then that PC doesn't get to have any druid class features.

Now we hit a point that is neither defined in the rules nor an obvious logical deduction from them, because you have a PC with an XP total higher than is compatible with their level total. Now you reach a point that can only be resolved by a house rule. One possible conclusion would be that you lose the levels and XP that you applied to druid (and you're at 0 levels and 0 hp if you didn't have levels in any other class). Another would be that you insta-rebuild with another class (or more than one) at your same level total. But, as best I can tell, there's no clear RAW syllogism to be applied at this point.

 

[Plaguescarred]

So the more I think about it; the "rule" says specifically "metal". Steel and Bronze are both alloys, technically neither of these is a metal. So steel half plate and bronze half plate should be fine and relatively common..

If steel and bronze was not metal all you'd see is adventurers wearing steel and bronze armor to be immune to heat metal and rust monsters alike loll

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And sure, if I have a problem with my DM completely taking away control of my character when it comes to a belief I don't agree with and find nonsensically stupid for a druid to even hold, then I can find a new DM... but that doesn't excuse the "rule". That doesn't mean it is okay for DMs to be given this carte blanche to force people to bow down to their vision of what my character should be. They can't do it for a cleric. They can't do it for a paladin. So why are they allowed to do it for a Druid?

Because it's a rule?

¯\(ツ)/¯

I understand that this is a deeply unsatisfying answer to you (I think the length of this thread, and your participation in it, have made that clear), but it's really that simple.

People can feel very passionate about different rules in D&D- I mean, I assume they do? I lack passion for most things, except topiaries and tequila. At the end of the day, though, it's like anything else; the rules are whatever you decide at your table. They are guidelines, not edicts.

I mean, you can lobby WoTC to change it in future printings of the PHB, or change it in the errata. Of maybe have it changed in 6e.

Until then, talk to your DM (if you are a player) or discard the rule (if you are the DM) given your very strong opinions! I hope you find nothing but success, well-manicured landscapes, a bottle of Casa Dragones Joven, and metal-encased druids in your future.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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"?

How can you not get it? It is terrible game design to make players choose between archetypal theme and a mechanical benefit. The rules should do the exact opposite!