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

[Maxperson]

As far as you know!

I'm pretty confident about this one.

 

[Maxperson]

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

How do you figure? Proficient with hide. Is chitin hide? No. Is dragonscale armor hide? No. Not proficient. Where's the question?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't think @Faolyn has said that there shouldn't be in-fiction consequences for druids who break the taboo.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

They get power from the pact. Break the pact and I would think the power breaks with it. That's how I would rule it anyway. At that point the warlock would need to work to get back into the good graces of his patron or find a different patron.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What would you say if the DM responded:

“I can buy that. But traditionally, druids are restricted by a strong taboo that operates to reduce their otherwise considerable power (full spellcasting, shapechanging and decent martial skills). What restriction does your druid operate under that is equally limiting to not wearing metal armor?”

Well, first, the thing you are quoting is about t a druid with a metal prosthetic limb. So, wearing armor has nothing to do with it. It only came up because, well, a Druid has no limitations on having a metal limb, but @Faolyn said something to the effect of them believing a Druid would rather rip off their own arms than have a metal limb. So, I asked that above question of what they would do if a player came to them with that concept.

I never got an answer, but I wanted to clarify what you were quoting.

But, let me assume it was about a druid wearing metal armor. Well then, I would likely tell the DM that the taboo has nothing to do with their power. The designers were very clear, a druid wearing half-plate made out of bone or whatever isn't above the powerline expected for the game. It is just a potential extra quest they may require me to go on.

So, what restriction would be the same as potentially going on a quest to kill a monster? I don't know. Offering aid to those that need it? That could likely get me on more than one quest. Good concept to. Maybe that my druid does a Johnny Appleseed impression and plants trees.

You want a restriction that might inconvenience me? I guess I could decide that my Druid doesn't go into churches if they can avoid it. I mean, what is this hypothetical DM looking for? Do they want me to sacrifice class abilities in exchange for not jumping through the hoops of making bullete armor?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A cleric blaspheming against the deity they worship.

A warlock ignoring their patron.

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

Those aren't rules. The paladin one might be, but it also has some potential mechanical implications if things get too far.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I will sidetrack, so there.

But what I mean is, for clerics and warlocks, there's nothing in the PH as to what happens if they go against or deliberately forsake their god or patron. Mike Mearls says in Sage Advice that patrons can't take away their warlocks' power, but that's in a tweet, and therefore easy to miss. It's very easy to assume that a god strips away their cleric's divine abilities (that's what I would do), but again, it's not actually said. And there's no atonement spell this edition.

That's a good thing in my opinion. I've never liked that atoning was a spell and not an meaningful act on the part of the cleric.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And the theme is stupid. Sorry, it is.

What makes taking a piece of metal, heating it up and beating it into shape different than taking a piece of metal, heating it up and beating it into shape? Nothing right?

So why can my druid wear a magical golden crown of power, but I can't pick up a plain iron shield? Both have mechanical impacts, both are made of metal, one is more "civilized" than the other? Can my druid read a book on Alchemy and gain proficiency with Alchemists tools, discovering the power of SCIENCE! ? Yep, no problem. Can I wear an antiquated bronze breastplate? No, too civilized. Can I use a gun if they exist in the world? Yep, perfectly fine.

It is completely incoherent, and makes no sense. And while you can choose to play a druid who rejects society, who rejects banking and and everything else... you can also play a druid who doesn't. Who instead embraces and tries to merge civilization and nature. And that's a good concept too.

I mean if you're trying to convince me that there should be more restrictions on druids you might be making some headway. Guns definitely are completely optional to begin with, so no one is able to use them without GMs permission and one cannot expect basic rules to take them into account. But no, I wouldn't let druids use them.

Played with a Twilight Cleric. Guy was thinking about switching classes because he didn't feel like he was really contributing enough. They are good, but they aren't busted.

Ok. Let's just say this makes it clear that we're not going to agree on what is balanced, so I shall disregard your arguments regarding that issue.

No, no longer continuing to deny them their full use of their proficiency is not a buff. They were given medium armor. They can use medium armor.

Lifting an equipment restriction to allow using better gear than otherwise is obviously a buff and it is bizarre to argue otherwise.

If you've got a huge issue with them using metal, which I think is a stupid restriction, the minimum you could do is make providing alternatives easier.

I offered my take on how better non-metal armours should work.

It really comes back down to a question I asked a while ago. If you really think that people don't care about this tradition to the point that as soon as it is removed, they would all invariably flock to breaking it... why do you think it is better to simply make the rules force them to follow that tradition? "Class Identity" is a nice thought, but I don't see how my character is less of a druid because I don't care about this stupid tradition. I still have many many other things that I do that make them a druid. And that is my choice.

Perhaps some people indeed would choose inferior options for the sake of theme. I might. Still, it is terrible game design to force people to make that choice. Rules should reward sticking to themes, not the opposite.

Ha. Ha. I'm laughing. Ha.

Good. I aim to please.

Except that you are wrong. Druids are more than clerics who don't wear metal armor. And if you think otherwise... why even bother caring about the druidic identity. That is so weak of an identity it doesn't even warrant talking about.

Ultimately you don't like the themes of the D&D druid so you want to change it to be something else. Why not just play a class you like as it is?

 

[Maxperson]

So by the RAW, there is no penalty for any ethos violation in the class system. It's purely the DM's purview and those crying "muh agency" are essentially advocating to remove the DM from enforcing it.

That's completely untrue. Literally nobody in this thread has said or advocated for that. They have said that the DM saying, "No, you can't do that." to a druid wearing armor is violating agency and overstepping his authority, and that's true. However, in-fiction consequences for violating in-fiction oaths and taboos haven't been placed into that category by us.

 

[Maxperson]

I want to pop in here for a second.

Monstrosities is a TERRIBLE category. It covers naturally occuring creatures that just aren't naturally occuring in our real world. It covers people cursed into new forms. It covers magical experiments. Basically, if it isn't a a bog standard animal, and doesn't fit easily into a different category (or they want to deny things like charm person or wildshape) then they call it a monstrosity.

Does it? The description doesn't say that. And examples of creatures that are naturally occurring, but aren't natural to the setting that I have seen are usually aberrations, celestials, fiends, etc. I will admit, though, that I generally don't look closely at creature types, so I could easily have missed examples.