D&D 5E (2014) Druids and metal armor

[The Crimson Binome]

So basically you are saying that "fluff is RAW" or FAW ("fluff as written") is mandatory.

Fluff and crunch are both equally mandatory. You can change the fluff if you don't like it. You can change the crunch if you don't like it. Either one can have room for interpretation. It's your game.

And who exactly are the "powers that be" granting powers to druids according to the PHB?

It's going to vary from setting to setting, as much of it is left vague. The PHB doesn't tell us much about them, so we have to fill in the blanks based on what is there. My interpretation is that it's either the local nature deity (Ceres or Idunn or what-have-you), or an even older pantheon which has fallen out of common worship.

It's kind of like in AD&D, where there wasn't a default setting so much, and the only thing we knew was that priests weren't supposed to use swords (except for druids, who could use scimitars but weren't supposed to wear metal armor). There's still a reason why they can't do those things, but we're left to our own interpretations as to why exactly.

 

[Hriston]

FYI According to the main classes entry on PHB pg. 45. The druid only gets proficiency with nonmetal shields and armors, which suggest that a druid wearring armor for which it lack proficiency has disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and can’t cast spells.;

Armor and Weapon Proficiencies: Light and medium armor (nonmetal), shields (nonmetal), clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, spears

The consequence, as someone already pointed out up-thread, is that the druid is not proficient with metal armour, so all of the normal consequences apply. The game is not telling your character what to do. You are free to wear armour you are not proficient with. You will not, however, then be able to operate normally as a druid, casting spells, etc., and I think the DM would be justified in imposing harsher penalties depending on the exact nature of druidic orders in his/her world.

This is a sensible approach, though there would me much easier ways of giving this information than the ethical imperative among proficiencies that we have. If this is so, then, would you agree that a Fighter/druid or a mountain dwarf druid is proficient in and free to wear any light or medium armour?

I agree that the "ethical imperative" on p. 65 is unclear compared to the obvious limitation on proficiency that's given on p. 45, but I think that the difference is important. If it were simply a matter of proficiency then picking up a proficiency in the metal items through muticlassing or a feat would suffice. But I think that the point of the more generally worded prohibition on p. 65 is that to do so would run contrary to druidic identity. Of course it's up to the DM and the role of druids in the particular setting that the DM has crafted, but the way I would handle such a scenario, where a druid has somehow picked-up a proficiency with metal armour and shields, and intends to employ them in his adventuring, is as follows.

First I would remind the druid of the druidic order's prohibition against the use of such items, and ask the druid, "Are you sure you want to contravene the edicts of your order?" If the answer is yes, then I might ask, "Are you really sure?" If still yes, then I would allow the character to use the items as fully as the rules allow with no immediate consequences. After a period of time in the game world long enough for word to spread of the character's flouting of druidic custom, I would arrange an encounter between the character and a high-ranking member of the order in which the character would be commanded to desist from wearing the metal armour and/or shield or to renounce and never again use druidic powers. If the character does not comply, there would be consequences up to and including single combat to the death.

 

[weldon]

I think I clarified my metal/nature thing when I said that metals (plural) are found in nature but usable metal (as a product) is not of nature, but rather a man made creation. If I wasn't clear I apologise but hopefully that helps and makes sense.

That's better, certainly. I would only add that there are a few metals that are found in their native state. Copper, meteoric iron, gold, silver off the top of my head. These were usable before smelting was invented.

The rule IS an island among a sea of emancipated, bra-less, do-what-you-like freedoms, it's true. I can see the frustration in others that this causes. But it doesn't bother me. I view the rules as a collection of likeable, bendy creatures that want to be my friends and really don't mind being ignored.

Agreed. Everyone needs to figure out what works for them and the bend the rules to make their game fun. I find it helps me to argue this stuff out on the internet so I can keep the game focused on the fun and the story.

In prior editions (OD&D/1E era spalt, not so much core) druids were very much "anti-man-made". Later editions (again, splat, not core) recast this as "the old faith" in a psuedo-cleric mold where the hard core druids were of the old faith and the new druids (new editions) were just plan old druids.

I prefer my druids to be more wild hunt civilization haters than eco-friendly hippies. But that's just me.

I'm OK with that, but I do like how clerics, paladins, sorcerers, etc. have different options that sometimes allow you to play against the norm when you like. I like how there are different druid circles that have different fluff and powers. This no metal armor rule sticks out to me as fluff that could be setting-specific or circle-specific instead of a blanket enforcement.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

The rule is there because of tradition and nostalgia, and perhaps its left vague so that those who don't care for it, or find its inconsistencies grating, can simply ignore it. Those that like can develop their campaign to answer the questions like "in a metal box".

Thanks to you as well. I came to the same conclusion that this rule is just there "because." I still think it is interesting to consider the implications of the rule in building a setting or campaign world that makes sense.

Then perhaps the lore is based upon the Celts using their advanced iron technology to subjugate some other, less advanced civilization? As I said, I'm drawing on pop culture rather than historical documents, but I'd be surprised of there wasn't some kernel of fact in there somewhere. The point is just that druids represent the less-technologically advanced civilization, and that's why they can't wear breastplates or chain mail.

I would guess that it is closer to this idea that iron represents civilization, where the fey (or devils or witches) represent something outside civilization. I'm OK with representing druids as having an aversion to civilization. This metal armor restriction seems a strange way to represent that in the rules when there are so many other aspects of the druid's relationship with civilization that are not touched on in the rulebooks.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Personally I liked the "defeat your elder before you level up", one Druid per higher level idea. Miserable solitary throwbacks, makes sense they don't even like each other.
(Bear in mind, I love Druids!)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Then perhaps the lore is based upon the Celts using their advanced iron technology to subjugate some other, less advanced civilization? As I said, I'm drawing on pop culture rather than historical documents, but I'd be surprised of there wasn't some kernel of fact in there somewhere. The point is just that druids represent the less-technologically advanced civilization, and that's why they can't wear breastplates or chain mail.

But can use future tech salvaged from the Barrier Peaks?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Personally I liked the "defeat your elder before you level up", one Druid per higher level idea. Miserable solitary throwbacks, makes sense they don't even like each other.
(Bear in mind, I love Druids!)

That was a weird rule that was actually fun, particularly since the challenge could be non-lethal. In one of our games the druid won the hard boiled egg eating challenge by turning into a hippo (that was hungry, so very hungry) to level up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But can use future tech salvaged from the Barrier Peaks?

That's the question, on why so many people would prefer that everything was a little more spelled out. If metal armor interfered with the ability to channel Druidic magic, then of course they could use advanced plastic or ceramic armors with no problem. If it was an oath against using technology, as represented by iron chain mail but not a simple blade, then of course they couldn't.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Barrier Peaks, but I'm inclined to believe that such artifacts would be viewed more as magical items than as technology, and Druids have nothing against using magical items.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

See, I'd say advanced plastic armour would have the same effect of blocking the Source as metal. But as for the guns...how could you not?!

Imagine the players' faces when you tell them they've gone for a trip to the Barrier Peaks ("Yay! Are we nearly there yet? Are we nearly there yet?"), and then tell them that their friends can play with blaster rifles and plasma pistols but they have to make do with the medicine kit.

Here boy.
Yap yap wag wag
Punt.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That's the question, on why so many people would prefer that everything was a little more spelled out. If metal armor interfered with the ability to channel Druidic magic, then of course they could use advanced plastic or ceramic armors with no problem. If it was an oath against using technology, as represented by iron chain mail but not a simple blade, then of course they couldn't.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Barrier Peaks, but I'm inclined to believe that such artifacts would be viewed more as magical items than as technology, and Druids have nothing against using magical items.

Heh, my point was more a comment on how goofy the rule is, since it ONLY applies to armor.

Another hypothetical - what if the metal armor is made magically. Would a druid wear a chain shirt painted into being by Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments? I mean, clearly they can, just druid mind control say's they wont What objection will Lord FussFuss, druid contrarian, bring to bear against this clearly blasphemous device?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Another hypothetical - what if the metal armor is made magically. Would a druid wear a chain shirt painted into being by Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments? What objection will Lord FussFuss, druid contrarian, bring to bear against this clearly blasphemous device?

He'd probably ring up Andrew Lloyd Webber, point out a potential copyright infringement and leave it to the Lawyers+1 to deal with it.