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

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, just like druids can break their in-fiction rule. There is nothing that prevents it. And sure, the druid in the game is cheating and if he gets caught by other druids, can be in a lot of trouble. I agree.

Or by nature. ‘Cause nature knows.

 

[mrpopstar]

Or by nature. ‘Cause nature knows.

NATURE KNOWWWWS!

 

[The Green Hermit]

Well, no. Nobody went out and used magic or curses to create the Platypus. Their origins are completely different.

As far as you know!

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm reasonably certain that owlbears, griffons, and platypi are all just different phases in the lifecycle of one species.

The -pus suffix is Greek, so it should be platypodes if you want to be linguistically consistent. Or platypuses if you favor using modern English conventions.

 

[Faolyn]

A cleric blaspheming against the deity they worship.

A warlock ignoring their patron.

Even paladin’s only suffer a consequence for violating their oath at DM’s discretion.

That's my point: none of those are rules. They're events that can possibly happen. Quite likely to happen with PCs, even. But other than paladins, nothing that says what happens after the deed is done, and as you say, with paladins it's up to the DM (and hopefully the PC as well). Just like a druid may very well decide to put on metal armor. What happens then?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Plus, there's no other class (or background, or race) that both allows the class proficiency in X and also disallows proficiency in X at the same time.

Multiclassing and Feats are both optional rules, so using only non-optional rules the only way to achieve proficiency in metal armor as a druid (if you ascribe to the interpretation that it is a proficiency issue), is to play a dwarf druid.

Seems like a fair compromise to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So why didn't they just say proficient with hide?

Because otherwise there would be a question about whether druids were proficient in chitin or dragonscale armors.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Well, like you figured out mid-post, you don't send a paladin on a side quest to get gold to buy their plate. They are already getting gold from the adventure.

And maybe the druid will fight something they can make a half-plate equivalent too. Maybe not. It depends on the adventure. I can certainly imagine that an undead focused adventure is going to have far fewer big monsters covered in armor than a jungle romp.

Also, if the Druid isn't able to spend the gold they are getting on upgrades to their own equipment... is it even a reward for them? I tell a paladin "here is 500 gold" they can look at it and say "Hey, this can help me pay for that armor I want." The Druid? "Hey, here is 500 gold... wonder if I can find an animal to kill to get that armor I want."


I'm not saying it is an insurmountable problem, of course you can make sure that every druid in your game has the opportunity to fight and skin some big beast during the course of the campaign. Then hopefully find some way to get enchanted skinned beast armor when the paladin pulls out that Efreeti Chain or whatever they end up getting. But it is annoying that this opportunity is treated like... like it has no issues. There are issues with this route, extra burdens on the druid beyond what the other classes have to face, things the DM either ignores and hopes the Druid player doesn't notice, or that they have to figure out how to work into the game on top of everything else. So, I get annoyed when people put it forth like it just works and has no issues.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's my point: none of those are rules. They're events that can possibly happen. Quite likely to happen with PCs, even. But other than paladins, nothing that says what happens after the deed is done, and as you say, with paladins it's up to the DM (and hopefully the PC as well). Just like a druid may very well decide to put on metal armor. What happens then?

I won’t sidetrack this discussion onto another issue, but suffice it to say, I disagree and I consider the cleric, warlock and paladin examples to be rules.

But to answer your actual question, the consequence for a druid putting on metal armor would be on a par with a cleric blaspheming against their god, a paladin breaking their oath, or a warlock ignoring their patron.

But to turn the question back on you, my impression is that you agree that a cleric blaspheming, a warlock ignoring or a paladin violating their oath could have consequences (and that this doesn’t violate player agency). How are druids putting on metal armor any different from those examples?

Edit: Sorry, I realized that I mistook you for @Charlaquin. Still interested in your perspective.

 

[Oofta]

I won’t sidetrack this discussion onto another issue, but suffice it to say, I disagree and I consider the cleric, warlock and paladin examples to be rules.

But to answer your actual question, the consequence for a druid putting on metal armor would be on a par with a cleric blaspheming against their god, a paladin breaking their oath, or s warlock ignoring their patron.

But to turn the question back on you, my impression is that you agree that a cleric blaspheming, a warlock ignoring or a paladin violating their oath could have consequences (and that this doesn’t violate player agency). How are druids putting on metal armor any different from those examples?

Edit: Sorry, I realized that I mistook you for @Charlaquin. Still interested in your perspective.

That is an interesting question. Paladins we have Oathbreaker, but clerics and warlocks do not.

What happens if a warlock actively rejects their patron and works to counter them?