D&D 5E Druids and metal armor

[Li Shenron]

It's just design stupidity plain and simple. Not because there is something inherently wrong in the idea itself, but because it is inserted in a game edition that purposefully removed all instances of ethical or religious restrictions. Seriously, Paladins can be evil but Druids cannot wear metal armor?

In previous editions this rule was set in a game world with several other restrictions of the same type, and it was after all ok. Except that even back then a large number of gaming groups were irritated by this or ignored it in their games.

Druids revere nature above all things. Leather and hide are natural/organic materials. Metal isn't.

That sounds like a joke. It is completely inconsistent with the fact that Druids can use all the metal they want, just as long as it isn't armor. And they can use any other inorganic material, for armor or not, including stone armors. And they can use arcane or other non-druidic magical items, which are possibly the closest thing to something being "unnatural".

It was just a design mistake, not to mention that this was included in the printed books without ever being in the playtests, which were supposed to have exactly the purpose of checking with the community these sort of things (not balance).

 

[Plaguescarred]

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


RAW here are the armors that specify wood, mention or ommit to mention metals as part of their description;

No Metal Armor
Padded armor
Leather armor
Studded leather armor
Hide armor
Ring mail armor
Shield

Metal Armor
Chain shirt armor
Scale mail armor
Breatplate armor
Half plate armor
Chainmail armor
Splint armor
Plate armor
Shield

 

[Klaus]

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


RAW here are the armors that specify wood, mention or ommit to mention metals as part of their description;

No Metal Armor
Padded armor
Leather armor
Studded leather armor
Hide armor
Ring mail armor
Shield

Metal Armor
Chain shirt armor
Scale mail armor
Breatplate armor
Half plate armor
Chainmail armor
Splint armor
Plate armor
Shield

Studded Leather and Ring Mail don't specifically mention "metal", but are reinforced with "rivets or spikes" and "rings".

I'd certainly allow nonmetal versions of several armors to be available, possibly as uncommon items. After all, the DMG already has "Dragon Scale Armor", which is a nonmetal scale mail. Examples:

Studded Leather Armor: leather reinforced with horn rivets.
Ring Mail: leather reinforced with horn, ivory or bone rings.
Scale mail: made with scales of giant reptiles, or dragonkin (wyverns, for instance).
Breastplate, Splint, Plate: made with special woods, like ironwood or bronzewood.

Chain shirt, chainmail and half-plate, which specifically call out as being made with chainmail pieces, would be the only types of armor I wouldn't allow as nonmetal.

 

[Paraxis]

In one of my campaign worlds I explained away the elves being masters of crafting mithril as it being made from the sap of giant trees at the center of their towns called heart trees. So this sap when hardened was like a metallic ore that could be shaped into things like elven chain, in such a world any armor made of mithril would be organic.

 

[Bupp]

In one of my campaign worlds I explained away the elves being masters of crafting mithril as it being made from the sap of giant trees at the center of their towns called heart trees. So this sap when hardened was like a metallic ore that could be shaped into things like elven chain, in such a world any armor made of mithril would be organic.

Idea stolen.

 

[Eirikrautha]

I love 5e. This is one reason why. The last few editions lost sight of what made D&D most popular; they went mechanics over flavor. I understand that some folks like mechanics (and I'm not surprised that the makers of Magic: The Gathering would initially favor heavy mechanics). Heck, some folks might desire D&D: The Boardgame. Whatever you have fun playing is fine!

But I can say that I know a lot of folks who enjoy the flavor of D&D. These folks see the mechanics as the means to an end and not the end itself. We use mechanics to resolve events that can't be fairly resolved through narrative. But I'm not playing this game for the mechanics. I'm using the mechanics to help me play the game.

So this is a perfect rule. It doesn't try to codify the reasons so that players can game them. Druids won't wear metal. If you do, the GM decides what the consequences are based on your game and situation. The mechanics are created by the GM to support the flavor. I like it.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The DMG random magic item tables provide for armour being made of strange materials. So magic chain made from tiny enchanted stones (or anything else you can think of) is already built into the game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's just design stupidity plain and simple. Not because there is something inherently wrong in the idea itself, but because it is inserted in a game edition that purposefully removed all instances of ethical or religious restrictions. Seriously, Paladins can be evil but Druids cannot wear metal armor?

Evil paladins have always been around (anti-paladins, blackguards, whatever), but druids have never worn metal armor.

It's the difference between game mechanics and narrative distinctions. It makes sense to keep the metal restriction, because that's based on in-game fluff. The paladin restriction is just based on the meta-game categorization of characters into classes. If metal-wearing druids were totally a thing - on par with anti-paladins or blackguards - then it might make sense to remove the druid armor restriction by folding the variant into the base class.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

If a Druid harnesses and keeps in balance the four elements - Air, Water, Earth, Fire - why is the thought of rock armour anathema? Organic/inorganic may be a poor way for me to have expressed my point. Instead, consider that Rock would be part of the element of Earth. In its natural state.
Precious metals - gold and silver - and jewels are likewise simply minerals. Cut and polished, but again part of the element of Earth. They can be basically dug up.
Metal -steel, bronze, etc - is forged. They don't exist in nature and have to be created. The minerals/carbon (Earth) are taken and melted down (Fire) in a furnace itself created and manufactured rather than grown, the furnace is fed artificially by Air through bellows and then cooled in Water. The end result -steel - being a creation not of nature but man-made in the most absolute sense, a something new, a transformed product of man's/dwarf's/etc mastery over all the elements, rather than their collaboration with them.
Thus, while Druids may use metal objects, as useful tools and decoration (see: harvesting mistletoe with sickles and wearing gold torcs IRL), they feel that to clothe oneself in such apparel would be to distance oneself from the Source too far. Leather is treated hides, but remains essentially just a hardened version of itself rather than being something new.
That's the "lore" I go with, and it works for me, 'cause to me, Druids are built that way and it makes sense to have that limitation. In the same way it makes sense to me that a very zealous warrior in service to a lawful evil deity can be a Paladin (see Darth Vader, who could qualify) - remember, to them, they're the good guys. But if it doesn't work for you, that's cool. Your game is your game. I don't agree the mechanics are broken but I guess if you do, that's your view and it's just as valid as mine is in my game as yours is for your game.
Now, where's that tree, it looked like it needed a hug...

 

[Shadowdweller00]

So - the PHB strips out a lot of flavor for the sake of making the rules as widely applicable as possible. The restriction has been in place for a considerable number of editions, presumably in part from a balance standpoint. It's hardly the most ridiculous element of the game, considering for example the pseudohistorical tradition of clerics being restricted from edged weapons. Or the absurd transformation in D&D of real world arms and armor.

Consider this from a semi-historical standpoint: Prior to something like the 17th century (when it was replaced with coke), iron forging was accomplished using charcoal. So objects made of metal would conceivably represent the loss of many trees. Perhaps in the druidic philosophy this is forgivable for small(ish) tools and objects...but an entire SUIT made of iron or steel? Less justifiable.