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

[Remathilis]

There would be nothing wrong with that... if the druid entry were written as "proficiencies: light armor, hide armor." But it's not.

I always saw it as a future-proofing mechanic. If the druid was proficinct in just light + hide

• They wouldn't be able to wear dragon scale or any other "natural" medium armor the game later adds. (Each item would have to call out that the druid is proficinct or not)
• You'd still have the problem on a micro-scale with shields since their is only one shield in the game and its stats don't vary by material.
• That doesn't stop the weirdness with elven chain.

So it looks cleaner in the initial, but the problem doesn't go away and now you have druids who can't wear dragon scale, anklegh half-plate or whatever other item the DM or later sourcebook adds.

I'd still rather their be a mechanical penalty beyond non-proficiency, the one that makes the most sense is wild-shape not working if the druid is wearing metal armor.

 

[carkl3000]

It is called creating a character. Every choice you make in character selection closes some doors. When you choose one thing it means you're not an another. If I am an elf, it means I'm not a dwarf. You choose to play a character that will not wear metal armour, it is your choice; no one is (hopefully) forcing you to play a druid.


Same thing. It still limits how you play your character.


So how do you handle it?

It is happening in my game now. I started with a level in cleric and scale mail. I'm intending to make my character a melee-focused caster so AC matters more to my build than it would to a typical battle field control type druid who can put up a big concentration spell and retreat to safety. I took my 2nd level and will take all remaining levels in druid. Before the game started I explained all this to my DM and asked what he thought about druids in metal armor. He said essentially, "you do you. They're proficient right?" I asked if there would be any consequences in game. He said, "guess you'll have to wait and see." I asked if he was okay with crafting non-metal medium armors. He said "sure."

So that was all I needed to know beforehand. He has hinted that at some point early in the game, we will encounter some kind of conclave of druids. I guess we'll see what happens when we do. Maybe I'll be shamed into relinquishing my scale mail? Maybe something worse? I don't know. I'm looking forward to role playing it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To answer the original question:

No, if I were to run 5e I wouldn't allow Druids to wear metal armor. Instead, there will be Monster Hunter-esque quests to craft amazing monster armors with special powers, because Questing For It is awesome.

I can respect wanting to do a quest, I really can, it has the potential to be fun.

But not every adventure has space for side-quests to look for monster bits. Not every player feels comfortable taking an entire mission just to get their character a basic breastplate. And, if I was playing a druid, I would really not want to have to make a choice between a side-quest devoted to me hunting and killing a monster to get basic armor, and actually developing subplots that I wrote into my character's backstory.

I get the desire to quest for everything, I really do. But the group has limited table time, something has to be left behind sometimes, and I'd rather let a druid buy armor than let a more interesting sub-plot die off.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why must a fallen star be made of metal, again? Why not glowing crystal, stone, magically congealed light, magically hardened ice or something even more exotic?

Sure it could be those things.

Why can't it be metal? The character is a dwarf, they have blacksmithing proficiency, not ice sculpture profiecncy or magically congealed light forging proficiency. I mean, would you really let a level 1 character start with armor made from magically congealed light? It appearing simple is also part of the appeal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So AC 19 is what druids need to have? I don't know, perhaps you're right that they need better AC. Then again, you seem to be the only person in this thread that is approaching this from the angle that druids are underpowered. Most people's issues with the rule do not seem to be related to that, nor I've heard many (any) complaints about druid power level in general. So I am not super convinced.

I'm not approaching it from that angle. I have listed my priorities multiple multiple times. my first issue is that the logic of the concept makes no sense. Seeing metal as unnatural is as stupid an idea as saying that bones are unnatural.

However, you can't help yourself. You have to accuse me of powergaming and it being about mechanics again and again. And, I'm aware enough to see that there is a mechanical element to this, so I acknowledge it and discuss it, because you are so desperate to talk about it. If the sage advice had said that the Druid would be overpowered if they wore Half-Plate, then I would acknowledge that fact and try to examine it. But, the Sage advice was perfectly clear. A druid in Half-Plate (metal or not) is within the expected power of the class. It is not more powerful than the designers intended. There is no powergaming.

And if you think that is the issue, why would you be OK wit the compromise of just not giving them medium armour proficiency? Because you can overcome by being a dwarf or taking a feat? Because if this truly was an balance issue, I don't think that would be an acceptable solution at all.

And shock of all shocks, it isn't a balance issue. Like I've said. Repeatedly. Again and again, over and over.

Do I see value in nerfing druids just so you can have your fur-clad wildmen stereotypes? No. I think that you could just let the people who care about the tradition choose for themselves to do so, but you are convinced that if you relax your guard for a single second then every druid player everywhere will suddenly be wearing the armor that they are allowed to wear, and that is perfectly acceptable to the power of the game, and that would be terrible because it would look bad in your mind's eye.

So, yeah, if you absolutely can't stand the thought, just make them non-proficient and then people can find ways to get the proficiency. Personally? I just acknowledge that metal typically comes from the planet, and therefore is natural.

Furthermore, If this was a balance issue, I definitely would seek options other than just making them more similar to clerics. If we need to buff their AC and give something other classes have, then unarmoured defence would be better, as classes that currently have it are very dissimilar to the druids. It would also allow druids to run around butt naked only covered in dirt and warpaint, so that sounds appropriate.

You could do that. I actually thought the idea of having them be able to buff hide armor as they gained levels was a good idea, though I think that Yaarel was right and that is better as a subclass than for all druids. Because, again, not all druids are the same. They believe in and worship different things.

 

[Maxperson]

I always saw it as a future-proofing mechanic. If the druid was proficinct in just light + hide

• They wouldn't be able to wear dragon scale or any other "natural" medium armor the game later adds. (Each item would have to call out that the druid is proficinct or not)
• You'd still have the problem on a micro-scale with shields since their is only one shield in the game and its stats don't vary by material.
• That doesn't stop the weirdness with elven chain.

It's the only way for the lack of proficiency house rule to work without adding in some sort of magic as the reason. Dragon scale armor is the same proficiency as steel scale armor. Proficiency with one is proficiency with the other since they work exactly the same. Scale = scale.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not approaching it from that angle. I have listed my priorities multiple multiple times. my first issue is that the logic of the concept makes no sense. Seeing metal as unnatural is as stupid an idea as saying that bones are unnatural.

Yes. I wonder if they have any idea how many natural creatures dig into the earth to pull out a resource for personal use(usually, but not always food)?

Then they suggest things like killing a Bullete or Purple Worm and using their hides to fashion armor. Monstrosities that dig into the earth looking for resources. Monstrosities are sure natural! Or they talk about beetles with their 13 AC. The creatures with the high AC are less natural than digging into the ground for a resource is.

 

[Maxperson]

It is happening in my game now. I started with a level in cleric and scale mail. I'm intending to make my character a melee-focused caster so AC matters more to my build than it would to a typical battle field control type druid who can put up a big concentration spell and retreat to safety. I took my 2nd level and will take all remaining levels in druid. Before the game started I explained all this to my DM and asked what he thought about druids in metal armor. He said essentially, "you do you. They're proficient right?" I asked if there would be any consequences in game. He said, "guess you'll have to wait and see." I asked if he was okay with crafting non-metal medium armors. He said "sure."

So that was all I needed to know beforehand. He has hinted that at some point early in the game, we will encounter some kind of conclave of druids. I guess we'll see what happens when we do. Maybe I'll be shamed into relinquishing my scale mail? Maybe something worse? I don't know. I'm looking forward to role playing it.

This is the way to do it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've gamed with Dungeon Masters who pull your character around by the nose a little bit, but I've never dealt with or witnessed a DM wholesale possessing anyone's character.

That would be... awkward.

I've seen it and lived through it. Wasn't fun.

Heck, the "pull you by your nose" led to one of the worst con expeirences I ever had, where the DM decided that since he knew everyone except me and this one other guy that one of us was going to be the butt of his jokes. Different system, but my Noble Duelist spent the better part of an hour being described in detail how he was dealing with the literal naughty word in the bilge of a ship, just being the butt of all the jokes.

One of only two things I remember from that game. The other being the only time my character got a chance to fight (in a four to five hour game) being against a boss, and him following his code and willing to die to save a kid. A concept that gob-smacked every "regular" at that table, because I guess this was a flashback to a living campaign and they couldn't understand why I was perfectly willing to let my character (who I'd scribbled together just a few hours before) die to have a single cool moment.

Yeah, yikes. I'm def not one of those.

I'd never think you were. But positions have to almost be overstated sometimes on these forums.

The rules for personality and background show you how to play up quintessential fantasy tropes and be rewarded for doing so. I think they're great because they provide guidelines for the basic behaviors that describe a heroic character that feels true to the Dungeons & Dragons brand.

Of course you're not restricted to the characteristics outlined, and of course you shouldn't feel constrained by them, but they do exist for a reason, and as the Dungeon Master it's helpful to collaborate on anything that isn't pre-packaged in the Player's Handbook. Having an alignment, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw written in ink allows the DM to build adventures with your character in mind, and make suggestions whenever the game stalls around ethical quandaries.

I get that they exist for a reason, I just don't think that reason has anything to do with me. I rarely even end up writing them down.

For example, I have a friend who started running a game for us set in a world where the bad guys won. The Evil Overlord took over the world, he's currently fighting the gods who are trying to prevent his ascent to true godhood, and the rest of us are living in his evil empire.

My character is an artificer, and I figured he had two really defining moments to shape his outlook on life. One was a very large man, probably a minotaur, being an abusive bully to people around him when he was a child. Cementing in him that idea that the strong make the rules. The other seeing a smaller person using a pulley system and a lift to raise up something like an engine that that minotaur for all his strength couldn't lift. Power doesn't only come from physical strength, tools can be a path to power. That is why his "virtue name" as a Tielfing is Lyft, to remind him of that moment.

If I had to say he had a flaw... he still thinks he can keep his head down and live a safe life. He's not a coward per se, but he certainly defers and is trying to just keep out of trouble. This is of course impossible considering he is in debt to a mafia and befriending a druid (one of the only groups still fighting the Overlord and therefore basically a terrorist, plus the guy is very much "burn the empire") and a paladin (who are all supposed to be dead, so basically a zombie terrorist).

But, this is enough for me and the DM wasn't really a part of this other than me asking questions like how he saw the society working.

For example, I have enough experience as a DM to know that I should anticipate a high stakes conversation among the players in situations where they've taken a hostage. It's helpful to be able to say "your alignment suggests we can count on you to do the right thing" or "your ideal suggests you believe this person should be treated with dignity and respect" when indecision strikes or infighting ensues.

That's not me taking control of anyone's character, that's me having a tool with which to stoke the fires of inspiration. In my experience, humble though it may be, that has been welcome at the table and leads to a faster-moving game.

I agree with reminding players of their own character traits. I don't use alignment, because it is far too simplistic and contradictory (not getting into the alignment debate here), but if a player is struggling to figure out what their character would do, I see the value in helping to highlight the question.

Your dwarf belongs to the circle of stars and will not wear metal armor for contrived reasons specific to the D&D brand. It's really that simple, but you're free to collaborate with your DM on an approach that works for you. I think star metal sounds awesome!

That bold part is the part that bugs me. It is a contrived reason from an older edition that makes no sense. You might as well say that Monks can't wear blue clothes. If it at least made some sense, it would bother me less, but it doesn't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can respect wanting to do a quest, I really can, it has the potential to be fun.

But not every adventure has space for side-quests to look for monster bits. Not every player feels comfortable taking an entire mission just to get their character a basic breastplate. And, if I was playing a druid, I would really not want to have to make a choice between a side-quest devoted to me hunting and killing a monster to get basic armor, and actually developing subplots that I wrote into my character's backstory.

I get the desire to quest for everything, I really do. But the group has limited table time, something has to be left behind sometimes, and I'd rather let a druid buy armor than let a more interesting sub-plot die off.

I said this before: why is this any different than having sidequests to gain gold so that paladin can buy their full plate? And if you say many enemies happen to carry gold anyway, so it can happen along other adventures, then the same applies to animal bits. A lot of enemies have parts that are useful for crafting non-metal armour.