D&D 5E Druid Armor Restrictions

[5ekyu]

Hah... last night the party's druid found out the exotic shell armor breastplate they took off a dead guy is a sign of status in a cult and to those "who know" it tells them he is "in that group". Explaining it as otherwise, creates different issues.

"Most likely, they already know you are here."



Cue the scramble for "how can I hide the exotic armor s
Large shell breastplate?"

 

[snickersnax]

Story is very important for me too, but it has to make full sense:

- no metal armor, but metal weapons are ok
- metal armor manufacturing requires trees, anything made of wood doesn't?
- "metal armor is too high technology", how about crossbows or an apparatus of Kwalish?
- "metal armor is not natural", how about necromancy spells? (multiclassed druids have no spell restrictions, but still aren't supposed to wear metal armor)
- "metal armor hurts nature", killing beats to harvest their hides and carapaces is lovely?

Sorry, none of these make enough sense to me.

The specific issue with metal armor is that it makes Druids sound like Vegans who "we shall never eat chicken", but then guzzle down pork sausages and lamb chops just because they're not in the manual :/ The overall resulting feel is that it's just incomplete, dorky ethics.

It could be a matter of scale and balance. Iron production is forest ending. There are plenty of ways to get animal and plant parts in small quantities that are either balanced, or don't require you to kill living creatures. Trees die to disease, lightning, floods and fires, animals die to other animals, old age etc.

I completely agree with you about the RAW creating a feeling of incomplete ethics and inconsistency. Unfortunately, the whole game suffers greatly from this, not just druids. Ultimately for druids, I find a good dividing line that "makes sense" is commercialization. When people start killing animals and plants for cash, that's where the line is clear.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Story is very important for me too, but it has to make full sense:

Yeah, I think the 'ethical' idea stuff doesn't work and brings an inconsistent set of ethics to the forefront. My house rule for it is that being encased in metal disrupts a druid's connection to the natural world, so prevents spellcasting, wild shape, and most spell like abilities. Metal weapons, fasteners, and even bits of metal (like studded leather) don't cause the problem, it's the big areas of metal that cause a problem.

 

[CleverNickName]

Story is very important for me too, but it has to make full sense:

- no metal armor, but metal weapons are ok
- metal armor manufacturing requires trees, anything made of wood doesn't?
- "metal armor is too high technology", how about crossbows or an apparatus of Kwalish?
- "metal armor is not natural", how about necromancy spells? (multiclassed druids have no spell restrictions, but still aren't supposed to wear metal armor)
- "metal armor hurts nature", killing beats to harvest their hides and carapaces is lovely?

Sorry, none of these make enough sense to me.

The specific issue with metal armor is that it makes Druids sound like Vegans who "we shall never eat chicken", but then guzzle down pork sausages and lamb chops just because they're not in the manual :/ The overall resulting feel is that it's just incomplete, dorky ethics.

Agree, whole-heartedly. I'm willing to make little changes to the specifics of the game but only if it will (a) tell a great story, (b) not keep others from having fun, and (c) not create a ton of extra work for me. I guess preserving the rules are a distant (d). (Except for spellcasting. I enforce spellcasting rules with an iron fist. But anyway...)

The player I keep talking about has decided that her druid eschews metal of all kinds. She decided that her druid cannot attune to anything made of metal, won't wield a metal weapon, won't even wear metal jewelry or carry metal coins. "My druid thinks that all metal is disgusting and she won't touch it...to her, it feels like touching a rotten fish."

Now this is important: she decided all of this on her own, as part of her character's backstory. It was not a restriction that I imposed on her, it wasn't even my idea. She wasn't fishing for any special powers or benefits in exchange for the restriction, she just thought it sounded awesome and wondered if it would be okay. She didn't want to disrupt the whole game, she just wanted her character to have a unique style.

So I said "Of course it's okay," and dove in. She could use pearls, abalone, etc., for currency. She could carry a shark-tooth longsword. She could wear armor made from beetle shell. And so forth. I didn't need to change the rules for what druids can and cannot do, I didn't need to change any stats. All I had to do was create a brand-new coastal village in the game world where they trade this gear (and use this currency), and that became her hometown. No big deal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In a standard DnD world I’m running, druids have no specific armor or weapon restrictions. If proficient, they can wear and use what they want, but culturally most Druid circles prefer non-forged materials. Some avoid iron bc it irritates the spirits they work with, others do so superstitiously, while still others don’t follow any taboo on forged metal gear.

In my games in homebrew worlds where I want Druids to have a slightly more Celtic flavor, they cannot wear armor or use weapons. Period. Even the Shillelagh is an ultimate last resort, and Primal Savagery isn’t an option. If you want to hit things as a Druid in such a world, without commuting a taboo that will lead to the very land turning against you, turn into a wild animal. The end.

In such games, I give Druids and Clerics Unarmored Defense (Wisdom), in place of proficiency in armors. Only War and Forge Clerics get any armor proficiencies or martial weapons.

But most of my games I just let players use classes as bags of feature to build a character with. A “Druid” might well be a fey shapeshifter, or a hedge wizard of the Merlin school, or whatever works for the player’s character concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know!

First you have to decide whether you or the druid are picking the creatures. Then there is book flipping and table side chats.

ugh.

I like to require that any summoning spell be prepared in specifics ahead of time. So, the creatures are picked before the spell ever gets cast.

Otherwise, it’s a pain, and I just pick the simplest single creature allowed by the spell, or a gaggle or small things that just attack, and run them all on the same intitiative.

 

[abirdcall]

Agree, whole-heartedly. I'm willing to make little changes to the specifics of the game but only if it will (a) tell a great story, (b) not keep others from having fun, and (c) not create a ton of extra work for me. I guess preserving the rules are a distant (d). (Except for spellcasting. I enforce spellcasting rules with an iron fist. But anyway...)

The player I keep talking about has decided that her druid eschews metal of all kinds. She decided that her druid cannot attune to anything made of metal, won't wield a metal weapon, won't even wear metal jewelry or carry metal coins. "My druid thinks that all metal is disgusting and she won't touch it...to her, it feels like touching a rotten fish."

Now this is important: she decided all of this on her own, as part of her character's backstory. It was not a restriction that I imposed on her, it wasn't even my idea. She wasn't fishing for any special powers or benefits in exchange for the restriction, she just thought it sounded awesome and wondered if it would be okay. She didn't want to disrupt the whole game, she just wanted her character to have a unique style.

So I said "Of course it's okay," and dove in. She could use pearls, abalone, etc., for currency. She could carry a shark-tooth longsword. She could wear armor made from beetle shell. And so forth. I didn't need to change the rules for what druids can and cannot do, I didn't need to change any stats. All I had to do was create a brand-new coastal village in the game world where they trade this gear (and use this currency), and that became her hometown. No big deal.

If you replace all metal with things that behave exactly the same way then what is the point?

Not touching metal at all is an interesting thing to me which can create interesting differences and situations. Replacing metal with things that behave exactly the same way as metal is like saying 'my character is different, she has grey eyes!'

I mean yes, that is a difference, but doesn't make a meaningful difference to the story. It's just window dressing.

Why take someone's character who has a special thing going on and then ruin it by creating analogues to all the things she won't use?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Why take someone's character who has a special thing going on and then ruin it by creating analogues to all the things she won't use?

I don't find the metal armour thing 'special' but, instead, a needless restriction. But if you are going to play with it then why bother giving a character class an armour proficiency if you're never going to give them an opportunity to use it? This Seems strange to me. To me, I'd rather allow them to get all the benefits of their character class but with the added flare that can be derived from compromise and cooperative story telling. Re-skinning things can lead to interesting challenges and stories if both the player and dm are invested.

 

[5ekyu]

If you replace all metal with things that behave exactly the same way then what is the point?

Not touching metal at all is an interesting thing to me which can create interesting differences and situations. Replacing metal with things that behave exactly the same way as metal is like saying 'my character is different, she has grey eyes!'

I mean yes, that is a difference, but doesn't make a meaningful difference to the story. It's just window dressing.

Why take someone's character who has a special thing going on and then ruin it by creating analogues to all the things she won't use?

But it seems to me that some may be saying " doesn't make a meaningful difference to the story" when they seem to be talking about " doesn't make a meaningful difference to the mechanics."

You dont have to have a mechanical plus or minus for there to be meaningful or even awesome story differences.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you replace all metal with things that behave exactly the same way then what is the point?
...
Why take someone's character who has a special thing going on and then ruin it by creating analogues to all the things she won't use?

Ah, I think I see the disconnect. This isn't a "rule" that I am applying for all druids. This is one exception that I am allowing for one character. And I'm not creating analogues for everything in the world, either; I'm handling them on a case-by-case basis. (Or not. I just placed a sentinel shield in a treasure hoard, and it's made of metal. I'm sure that will be frustrating for this anti-metal druid, at least at first. Someone in her hometown knows how to transfer the enchantment onto a different shield...but he doesn't take payment in gold. No, he needs a favor instead...muah ha ha haww...)

Ahem. Anyway.

I'm not "replacing all metal things," as you suggested. I'm only creating a way for one player's character to avoid metal, and I'm doing it purely for story purposes. Metal still exists in the game, and other druids still use it in varying degrees, and nobody cares. None of these analogues are superior (or inferior) to metal in any way, lest I accidentally create a balance issue somehow. It's all cosmetics..."window dressing," like you said.

I don't have a problem with players wanting their characters to be different. So long as it doesn't affect anyone else and it doesn't change any rules...why wouldn't I allow it?