D&D 5E Druids and metal armor

[mach1.9pants]

IMO it was written in that way so you can play it your way (TM) cos it really is a play style/table preference thing. Rulings not Rules etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I don't think so, Clerics used to be forbidden from using edge weapons and Paladins had to be Lawful Good. Both of these were primarily narrative concepts, although it's also possible that their mechanics consequences were used as balancing factors.

Druids not wearing metal is more similar to Clerics using only blunt weapons, both of which started of from a very weak narrative idea, such as "a Cleric should not spill blood". They are remarkably narrow and fragile narrative concepts which at the same time had a tremendously limiting impact on campaigns and characters design. It is not the idea that a Druid or a Cleric or a Paladin needs to have ethical restrictions which is wrong, what is wrong is the choice that every single Druid is stuck with the same restriction. That the restriction is pathetic only adds insult to injury: seriously, if the RAW doesn't disallows a Druid to torture animals and destroy nature, but wear a piece of metal and you are out, this makes the druidic religion moronic.

Both of them had mechanical consequences, namely not being able to use the presumably best armors and weapons in the game. You can argue that this has a purpose, and in the past I think it did. Still there are so many balancing factors in classes that could be used without problems. This Druid's ethical-to-mechanical restriction is probably the only instance in 5e, and it also creates a unique exception in the game, should you decide to allow multiclassing.

 

[Prickly]

The problem I have with this rule is that because the developers don't give the intention behind it, I as a DM need to guess what effects allowing wood or bone armour would have. Am I giving the player a bonus to AC or keeping them in their classes assumed range?

My druid player is very roleplay centric but very new to the hobby. When she asked me if the was armour made from other materials ,it seemed implied to her based on the text, I didn't know. I looked for any references to armour made from other materials and couldnt find any.

In the end I made a judgement call that such is possible but rare and not available for purchase from regular armourers. Now as a DM I am find doing that but some guidance would have been nice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is not the idea that a Druid or a Cleric or a Paladin needs to have ethical restrictions which is wrong, what is wrong is the choice that every single Druid is stuck with the same restriction. That the restriction is pathetic only adds insult to injury: seriously, if the RAW doesn't disallows a Druid to torture animals and destroy nature, but wear a piece of metal and you are out, this makes the druidic religion moronic.

I don't get why you would say that. All druids should have the same restrictions. All druids belong to the same ethical group, follows the same tenets, etc. It's not like the difference between War clerics and Life clerics and Death clerics.

Druids started out as one narrowly-defined example of how you could have a different sort of Priest, with different powers and spells and restrictions.

And no, the RAW doesn't allow druids to torture animals and destroy nature. Druid revere nature.That's all in the fluff, which is exactly as RAW as the proficiency list. They won't torture animals, and they won't wear metal armor. End of story. If you do those things, then you are not a druid. (The mechanical impact of a druid violating those restrictions is not detailed.)

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think so, Clerics used to be forbidden from using edge weapons and Paladins had to be Lawful Good. Both of these were primarily narrative concepts, although it's also possible that their mechanics consequences were used as balancing factors.

Paladins initially only had to be lawful; the Good/Evil axis was added in Strategic review, in 1976 (6 months or so after Supplement 1)

An actual anti-paladin class appears in Dragon #39.... July 1980. 34.5 years now.

 

[Anthony Terry]

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.



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).

Not to be rude but how can you compare the above and still maintain you have a clue what's being discussed? A Paladin being evil is in no way comparable to a druid using Metal. The very definition of a paladin is a Holy Warrior, well in D&D Holy has no attachment to good or evil and i prefer to use the word Divine Warrior. Considering their have always been evil paladins in the form of blackguards its about dam time a rather pointless alignment restriction was removed.

However all druids respect and revere nature and its natural powers. Metal is not natural, or at least Iron is not natural, so it interrupts a druids connection with nature and therefore power. Whether they look to protect(good),maintain(neutral),Control(Evil) nature they still need access to does natural powers.

If you want a druid that wears metal armour play a cleric and remove all natural spells. Or perhaps consider introducing the use of bronze, or other metals that could be considered natural? Perhaps with slight less AC than their Iron counter parts. I think the word Metal is misleading, i prefer to replace it with non natural materials, and I personally do apply it as far as larger metal weapons and other things beyond armour.

 

[Anthony Terry]

I don't get why you would say that. All druids should have the same restrictions. All druids belong to the same ethical group, follows the same tenets, etc. It's not like the difference between War clerics and Life clerics and Death clerics.

Druids started out as one narrowly-defined example of how you could have a different sort of Priest, with different powers and spells and restrictions.

And no, the RAW doesn't allow druids to torture animals and destroy nature. Druid revere nature.That's all in the fluff, which is exactly as RAW as the proficiency list. They won't torture animals, and they won't wear metal armor. End of story. If you do those things, then you are not a druid. (The mechanical impact of a druid violating those restrictions is not detailed.)

from my own post replying nearly identical to your self your see i agree with you but your wrong on the subject of druid abusing animals, no where does it state that druids cant abuse animals, Id go as far as to say what is the purpose of an evils druids obsession with nature if not for the fact he believes he can control it and obtain some kind of higher power through its manipulation?

A Neutral Evil druid would quite happily sacrifice or even abuse an animal to save his own life.

 

[77IM]

In 5e, the book has an actual discussion about paladin oaths, how to interpret them, what kind of stuff can happen if you violate them, etc.

Druid has none of that. Furthermore, I think the throwaway line about "druids will not wear leather armor" is the only place the PHB tries to tell me what my character will and won't do (outside of enchantment magic). The no-metal-armor restriction would have been much better described in terms of consequences and reasons, even if left up to the DM, than one terse parenthetical.

 

[MasterTrancer]

A Neutral Evil druid would quite happily sacrifice or even abuse an animal to save his own life.

Actually, in my mind I've always depicted evil druids as nonchalantly trampling over "civilized" life to preserve nature (e.g.: Black Druids Circle back in 2E).

 

[Anthony Terry]

In 5e, the book has an actual discussion about paladin oaths, how to interpret them, what kind of stuff can happen if you violate them, etc.

Druid has none of that. Furthermore, I think the throwaway line about "druids will not wear leather armor" is the only place the PHB tries to tell me what my character will and won't do (outside of enchantment magic). The no-metal-armour restriction would have been much better described in terms of consequences and reasons, even if left up to the DM, than one terse parenthetical.

If you refer to previous editions, say 1st or Basic combined with a few early dragon magazine articles, I'm sure you can find a more elaborated ruling like your requesting. That I'm sure was along the general gist of what i discuss above, Non natural Materials disturbing the channelling of natural energy.

Rules like this come from a different age, where the rule books were meant to give examples of and teach you how to manage a fantasy world in the case of the DM's Guide and the players guide taught a player all the different ways to explore and interact with that world productivly. Obviously a part of this was combat but since 2nd edition, and this is the only real difference between any of the editions IMO, Combat, rules for it and character progression/balance are the only real focus of the rule books.

They stooped trying to provide you a role playing guide and provided you with a 1:1 combat manual with a role playing after thought and your surprised they stooped elaborating on what at the end of the day is a rule that probably would get removed in over 50% of fantasy / Sci-FI settings?

The only reason the Paladin restriction was removed even was the amount of moaning that occurred on WOC forums about it for as long as i can remember, they stopped caring about this sort of thing as far as standard rule books are concerned along time ago.