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

[mrpopstar]

Heh, to indulge you. I will read Sage Advice again.

My interlinear comments are in italic.



Sage Advice
"
What happens if a druid wears metal armor?

The druid explodes.
Well, not actually.
[Humorous intent but actually adds to the confusion.]

Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield.
[Not in D&D 5e. In 5e there is no taboo.]

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 D&D tradition has abandoned many unhelpful flavors and mechanics since 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.
[This idea of a "taboo" is absent from the Players Handbook. Hypothetically interpolating a taboo into 5e, what remains unexplained is, why druids like attacking with metal but not defending with metal.]

Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor.
[Just like Wizards dont lack the ability to wear metal armor.]

They choose not to wear it.
[Which is why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with it.]

This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order.
[Different cultures have different mystical orders. Not every setting is Greyhawk.]

Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
[However, does a vegetarian like to attack with meat, but avoid defending with meat?]

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor,
[TYPICALLY! There are exceptions.]

and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it.
[The Druid is PROFICIENT with non-metal scale mail.]

If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM.
[Your DM might not think that the setting is D&D 1e Greyhawk! Also, it is ok to break the taboo. Also, get the proficiency from elsewhere.]

Each class has story elements mixed with its game features;
[However, there is no story in the Players Handbook to explain why Druids love metal weapons but not metal shields. Also, not every story is true in every setting, whether a regional setting or a world setting or a cosmological setting.]

the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others.
[Stories are important, so need to be coherent, and to avoid conflicting with proficiency rules.]

Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design.
[Except, in 5e, there is zero "taboo" in the Druid story. Moreover, the Druid is an earth elementalist who loves metal.]

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.
[There is no Druid story in the Players handbook concerning the use of metal armor!]

As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies,
[Yes, exactly. Follow the proficiency rules that are in the Players Handbook! Get the proficiency from somewhere else.]

you’re not going to break anything in the game system,
[Obviously.]

but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
[But there is no story in the Druid class description!!! Most 5e DMs are not "creating a 1e Greyhawk world for their campaigns".]

[Get the metal armor proficiency. Remain 100% in agreement with the stories in the Druid class description!]

[Here is a story. Some Druids love the element of earth! Including metal! And want to be defended by it. There is no contradiction with the Players Handbook.]



[Even if the players want the D&D 1e setting flavor that Sage Advice mentions. It only explains why the Druid lacks metal armor proficiency. A player remains free to gain this proficiency from any other source that grants it.]

"



As I said earlier, the Sage Advice explains little. But it suggests some of the reasoning for why the Druid class doesnt grant proficiency with metal armor. At the same time, to gain the metal armor proficiency from somewhere else is legal, and is how 5e rules work, and agrees with all of the flavors that are in the stories in the Druid class description.

On the subject of taboo, the Player's Handbook also uses the term in the School of Necromancy write-up as well.

 

[mrpopstar]

Can not would be better, because then at least the book isn’t telling players what their own characters “will” or “won’t” do. It would still have the problem of not making clear what actually happens if a character tries, but at least it wouldn’t overwrite the player’s agency over their character.

Yes, infinitely so, because then it would allow the player to be the one to make the decision. It would clearly lay out what happens, and then let the player do with that whatever they will. It’d be a stupid rule, but at least it would be a functional one.

Obviously that would be preferable.

That’d be fine, I guess. Probably more involved than is really necessary, but fine.

B is definitely my issue.

As one of those people who doesn’t think it’s a rule, my position has never been that I don’t understand why other people view it as a rule. I’ve said many times that I consider it a totally valid reading to interpret it as a rule. My assertion has always been that if you interpret it as a rule (as opposed to a statement about the lore of the setting), then it is a rule that violate’s player agency (by dictating what their character will and won’t do).

I haven't been swayed by the idea that a statement of will is a "violation of player agency." Given the tone of it, you'd think we were discussing bodily autonomy.

Druids won't wear metal armor in the game of Dungeons & Dragons. If that makes anyone feel violated, or that they can't roleplay under those conditions, they can speak to the Dungeon Master.

This is a social game. It isn't grossly unjust that anyone might have to engage with the DM to build the character of their dreams.

 

[Yaarel]

On the subject of taboo, the Player's Handbook also uses the term in the School of Necromancy write-up as well.

Nice catch!


Players Handbook
"
Wizard: Arcane Traditions: School of Necromancy
Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies.

"



• Here, the D&D jargon "taboo" means, something that a society considers inappropriate.
• A player character can (and here does) violate the taboo without any mechanical consequences.
• There might be narrative consequences depending on the society.



If a DM is choosing a setting where a particular Druid society considers "being defended by metal" to be a "taboo", a player can mechanically violate this taboo without any consequence. However, to do so might annoy, frighten, or anger other members of this Druid society.

The Druid mechanical rules still dont supply proficiency with metal armor, but a character that gets it elsewhere can violate the Druid taboo and use the metal armor normally.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Without homebrewed items or dragonscale (because while it is sort of raw, there are actually no non-metal armors listed except for dragonscale) then the best they can do without pumping Dex is 16... the starting AC for many characters. Including Monks.

And AC 16 is fine. Also, 'strange material' is a minor property that any magic item can have, so it is not just dragonscale.

Also, Mood Druids are considered one of the more powerful classes. Druids in general, less so. And I find this amusing. You want to say "they are among the most powerful" but you don't want to compare them to the class that they represent the most, why? Is it because... they aren't more powerful than clerics, and in fact, with the clerics far easier time casting with a shield and superior armor access the cleric is actually usually considered a bit stronger?

Are clerics generally considered stronger? I don't think so. And even if they were, why are we comparing to them instead to, say ranger or monk which are definitely considered weaker than the druid? If we start to buff things then it certainly makes sense to start wit the weakest classes and not wit the one which already is strong.

Priority sure, but this isn't a discussion about "priority" this is a discussion about whether the restriction makes sense, and since the restriction only covers two possible things out of dozens... it kind of doesn't make any sense. You know, on that world-building level that you wanted to talk about before.

If I care? If I don't care about druidic beliefs why am I enforcing this stupid rule that makes no sense?

As a GM you're feel to change any rule you want. But in D&D 'it makes no sense' is a strange hill to die on. And yeah, it would make sense for druids to have all sort of more extensive restrictions and taboos, but there cannot be (or at least it is difficult to make) rules that cover any and every eventuality. What armour is worn is a situation that comes across in every game straight at the character creation, so it is important to have a rule for that.

So, you admit that this has absolutely nothing to do with mechanical balance. Which, I'm going to remind you about when you bring it up, again, in accusing me that I'm trying to be a powergamer. It isn't about it for me, and it isn't about it for you.

That it has mainly to due other things doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with the balance. But the balance effect is not a big one. Basically druids have slightly harder time getting good armours than some other classes. They effectively have nerfed medium armour proficiency. And that's dine. Many classes don't get medium armour proficiency at all.

And I don't envy clerics, the entire point is that if this was a balance concern, then clerics would be overpowered, because they are nearly identical to druids, and yet can use metal armor. And no, I don't think letting druids use metal armor would make them too similar. Personally, getting rid of the nature cleric makes the distinction stark. It is about what they follow, not whether or not they wear armor made of natural materials like metal.

I'm not a fan of nature clerics either, so I'm with you there. But I still don't want druids routinely running around metal half plate. If you want a divine caster that does that, there already is a class for that and its not the druid.

Because the DM suggesting it is obviously trying to make a point in "proving" that all I care about is power gaming, yet it wouldn't be power gaming to go hunt a giant croc and make half-plate armor out of its skin and bones. Which would give me a higher AC than the hide armor. That isn't power-gaming, but just going and buying half-plate armor is.

All it is is a shallow attempt to win virtue points by proving that I'm a bad person.

Crocodile skin armour sounds like hide armour to me.

It would work. Remove the Proficiency and the restriction with it, then if they get the proficiency another way, there is no question about how it would work.

Sure. It would be mechanically easier. It would lessen the thematic importance of not wearing metal. You don't care about that, some others do at least somewhat. But then again, under this arrangement most druids still wouldn't wear metal so it would be tolerable compromise.

No, I don't find the fact that wizards can't heal to be a stupid restriction. They can do literally every other possible thing and have the majority of the most powerful spells in the game. They don't need any healing magic.

Right. So that arbitrary restriction based on D&D sacred cows is fine by you. Other feel same way about the druids and metal armour.

You could do that, but personally, I don't see "doesn't wear metal armor" as a thematic niche. Neither do rogues, monks, wizards or sorcerers, there isn't really a strong theme in druids not wearing it. It just shows a misunderstanding of what "natural" is to allow them to wearing chemically proccessed hides, but not shaped metal.

Well, I disagree.

And I think there are already three or four that it makes sense for, so I want to wave it more broadly.

It would be like letting all monks use their martial arts with plate and two handed swords. If there was one specific monk class that did so, it wouldn't destroy the themes of the class as whole, but making it the default would.

 

[mrpopstar]

Nice catch!

Thank you!

Players Handbook
"
Wizard: Arcane Traditions: School of Necromancy
Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

• Here, the D&D jargon "taboo" means, something that a society considers inappropriate.
• A player character can (and here does) violate the taboo without any mechanical consequences.
• There might be narrative consequences depending on the society.

Used as an adjective, something is "taboo" if it's prohibited or restricted by custom (New Oxford American Dictionary).

If a DM is choosing a setting where a particular Druid society considers "being defended by metal" to be a "taboo", a player can mechanically violate this taboo without any consequence. However, to do so might annoy, frighten, or anger other members of this Druid society.

The Druid mechanical rules still dont supply proficiency with metal armor, but a character that gets it elsewhere can violate the Druid taboo and use the metal armor normally.

I agree. The restriction is justified by the prohibitions outlined in the customs of druidry (as defined by D&D), but druids won't go to hell for rocking some dope elven chainmail. Heh

 

[Crimson Longinus]

1) Make it explicitly a choice and tradition. The players who care about the tradition will choose not to wear metal armor. The ones who don't care will. And it isn't really an issue unless you have some need to force players to fit your personal aesthetic.

Which mechanically rewards players going against the theme of the class. That's bad design. Like I said earlier, it would be like giving monks all weapon and armour proficiencies, and letting them to work with their martial arts, and then just letting players to intentionally nerf themselves if they want to stick to the theme of unarmoured warrior using bare hands and monk weapons.

2) Make druids non-profiecient with Metal Armor. This does nothing for metal shields, because a shield is a shield, but it means that druids start off unable to effectively use metal armors. Then, if they have a racial ability, take the feats, multi-class or anything else... let them wear the armor. The current most strict reading of these rules take a character who has spent multiple levels wearing armor, then has them strip out of that the moment they learn druidic magic by taking the class... but not from feats.

That would work and would be a decent if boring compromise option.

3) If you truly can't possibly stand the prescence of any druid wearing metal armor no matter what... then at least make non-metal armors easily available. The designers themselves said this is not a mechanical balance issue, and not every druid is going to want to ask the party to go on a special quest to get basic armors... then ask them to go on a later even more special quest to get magical versions of that armor. Plenty of people make armor out of the hides of monsters. That's why you have something called "hide armor" made from the hides of things killed by other people. If you can sell wolf pelts without breaking your world, surely you can sell the exoskeletons of giant insects that are known to attack farmers. Or giant swamp gators. Or arctic super predators. Even if you want this stuff to be super special and rare and not just on the shelf... have them get it from a retired adventurer or a retired hunter.

The issue with this is that if these non-metal armours have the same stats than their metal equivalents, then they're simply better. Do you want armour that is susceptible to heat metal or otherwise identical one which is not? Also from world building perspective it is weird. How did these people even develop metal working if dead animal bits are just as good, why anyone is bothering to make metal armour? Now I have nothing against primal setting where paladins run around in umberhulk carapace, that sounds hella cool, but that is not a typical D&D world.

However, to be constructive (for a change) I agree that it would make sense if rules for chitin and bone armour would exist outside the magic items. My solution here would be to give non-magical, non-metal versions of typically metal armours one point less AC. This would solve the issues I outlined above and would let druids to get decentish armour before they can obtain magical one. It would also be an alternative for other characters who are worried of heat metal.

 

[mrpopstar]

Chaosmancer said:
And I don't envy clerics, the entire point is that if this was a balance concern, then clerics would be overpowered, because they are nearly identical to druids, and yet can use metal armor. And no, I don't think letting druids use metal armor would make them too similar. Personally, getting rid of the nature cleric makes the distinction stark. It is about what they follow, not whether or not they wear armor made of natural materials like metal.

I'm not a fan of nature clerics either, so I'm with you there. But I still don't want druids routinely running around metal half plate. If you want a divine caster that does that, there already is a class for that and its not the druid.

I like the nature cleric! There's the whole "druids follow the old gods and clerics follow the new" vibe, but also the whole "druids embody nature while clerics champion nature" distinction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is an answer to what happens if a rogue uses a greatsword in a sneak attack: they don't get sneak attack dice. They can still attack from stealth, likely giving them advantage on the roll.

But what if the player just takes the sneak attack dice, rolls them and adds them to the damage? And when challenged, just say that they think that the bit about finesse weapons is just outdated fluff based on D&D traditions and not an actual rule. What then?

So since you refuse to answer this question, let's change it a bit: what force prevents a druid from wearing metal armor? Tradition? PCs often scoff at tradition. An oath? Then what happens if they break the oath, and why is that not listed as an oath like with paladins? An invisible sprite that follows the druid around and attacks whenever they put on metal armor?

What prevents them is the rule clearly written in the book. How that rule is justified within the fiction is up to the player and the GM.

I don't understand how you don't see that it's nothing more than badly-worded fluff with no actual rules attached to it.

It is a piece of text giving explicit instructions in middle of rule section of the book amongst other rules. Of course it is a rule!

Wizards can't cast spells in armor. Why? Because they're not proficient in armor. If a wizard gains proficiency in armor, they can cast spells in armor. Whether you like it or not, you have to admit that this is a very obvious cause-and-effect, and that more importantly, it's across the board. All spellcasters are hindered this way. Some spellcasters are just proficient in more types of armor than a typical wizard is. So a non-proficient wizard or other spellcaster who wears armor can't cast spells.

Rogues can't sneak attack with weapons that don't have the Finesse or Light properties. Why? It's because they need smaller, more agile weapons to hit that sweet spot they've learned to attack; other weapons simply aren't precise enough. So a rogue can't get sneak attack dice with a greatsword.

Druids don't wear metal armor. Why? I dunno. You can't say it's because they object to metal, since they can use metal weapons. You can't say it's because metal is unnatural, because it's not. So a druid in metal armor can't... what, again? "Just because" is not an acceptable answer.

The answer Crawford gives to 'why' is that druids have a taboo against wearing metal. If that is not sufficient to you you can either provide alternative fluff or change the rule.

 

[Yaarel]

Weapons and Armors are easy to change. Here is an example of a simpler armor table.


Armor: Armor Class

Light Armor
Padded: 11 + Dex
Leather: 12 + Dex

Medium Armor
Chain: 13 + Dex (max 4)
Scale: 14 + Dex (max 3)
Plate: 15 + Dex (max 2)

Heavy Armor
Full Chain: 16
Full Scale: 17
Full Plate: 18

Special Materials
Hide: 13 + Dex (max 2). Heavy fur, thick leather, bone, etc., effective but bulky.
Dragon: 15 + Dex (max 2). Shed dragonskin, sometimes gift from dragon.

Note
Scale armor includes many varieties of torso armor that comprises small metal plates connecting together, including fishscale squamata sewn onto a fabric shirt, brigandine cuirass riveted between fabric, banded lorica fastened to leather straps, lamellar strung together, and so on. Full scale armor sometimes has long thin metal splints as limb guards, and sometimes is a brigandine worn over full chain.

 

[Tonybro001]

In my campaign world there is no stricture denying them access to metal armour.

However, as a DM I like my druids to be "one with nature" and forged metal is definitely a sign of "civilization" and all its ills. Most of my worlds druids are like hermits and hide away in the forests and hills far way from the towns and cities so there is definitely an access to metal armour consideration.

Personally, I was always enamoured with the laminated armour of the invaders from Kelewan which featured in Raymond E Feists Maggician Trilogy (Awesome books) and how alien it appeared to the Midkemians. I believe this was inspired by Japanese Samurai armour which was made from laquered leather. I also remember the mythbuster testing laminated paper armour based on a 600BC Chinese design.

As others have mentioned above there are so many natural alternatives to metal armour that the question is not so much would you allow it rather why does it make sense for a druid to wear it.