D&D 5E Druids and metal armor

[Hriston]

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.

 

[Anthony Terry]

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).

I cant remember the exact Module but I will try and dig it out after work but a Neutral Good Druid of obdhai, turns a small boy into a sheep and convinces his father to eat him to teach the father a lesson for poisoning a rival farmers cattle.

Your idea of a Evil druid is my idea of a good one dependant on faith. A Neutral Evil person by very definition cares about no-one but him self and his progression. I see no reason why being a druid would change this so drastically as you to hold animals above your or even other humans, not something all druids do even, for example druids of ehellona feel nature should be protected, but see humans as the overlords of nature and a superior race.

 

[MasterTrancer]

I cant remember the exact Module but I will try and dig it out after work but a Neutral Good Druid of obdhai, turns a small boy into a sheep and convinces his father to eat him to teach the father a lesson for poisoning a rival farmers cattle.

That doesn't seem me very GOOD. Unless it was a test, and the child would be restored afterward. And even then I'd see at most as NEUTRAL on the GOOD vs EVIL axis.

EVIL should mean "me and my tenets foremost" after all.

But let's go back to the OP. Druids simply "wont use metal armors nor shields". They can and will use wood, stone (obsidian?) but not metal; why? Mostly I'd say for legacy reasons, or maybe because of the heat metal spell, which was a very main staple of the original (BECMI) druid; and don't forget that in BECMI druids had to fight between themselves to progress after a certain level.

On the contrary, I can't see the prohibition tied or somehow related to the manufacturing process any smelted ore is subjected to: after all, crystal/glass items are not called out (I know, mostly are just magical items, but I can totally see them on a druid).

 

[Anthony Terry]

That doesn't seem me very GOOD. Unless it was a test, and the child would be restored afterward. And even then I'd see at most as NEUTRAL on the GOOD vs EVIL axis.

EVIL should mean "me and my tenets foremost" after all.

But let's go back to the OP. Druids simply "wont use metal armors nor shields". They can and will use wood, stone (obsidian?) but not metal; why? Mostly I'd say for legacy reasons, or maybe because of the heat metal spell, which was a very main staple of the original (BECMI) druid; and don't forget that in BECMI druids had to fight between themselves to progress after a certain level.

On the contrary, I can't see the prohibition tied or somehow related to the manufacturing process any smelted ore is subjected to: after all, crystal/glass items are not called out (I know, mostly are just magical items, but I can totally see them on a druid).

The glass and or potions being usable by druids is the biggest debate in my game when ever anyone plays one. How far i go with this kind of restriction really depends on the campagain but by rule of thumb I write it out as "druids are unable to use an natrual material that is required by an inhabitant of the planet in a more natural way". Wont even use honey in my games yall if your a good druid.

Also your ideas of good and evil are far too modern for my tastes. If my god teaches me that does 5 cows were each equally worth as much as the child, how is it evil, to take an eye for an eye, teaching the farmer a lesson in the process?!, as put forward in the Jewish bible? When considering good/evil in a fantasy game one must consider the point of view in which good/evil is being considered. - granted the trickery apply s chaotic tendancies over Lawful and maybe even neutral over good for sure, the killing of the child however does not imply evil and nor does seeking vengeance for the cows.

These people do not live in Modern Day London and the huge Morality placed on some things just would not be there.

 

[MasterTrancer]

The glass and or potions being usable by druids is the biggest debate in my game when ever anyone plays one. How far i go with this kind of restriction really depends on the campagain but by rule of thumb I write it out as "druids are unable to use an natrual material that is required by an inhabitant of the planet in a more natural way". Wont even use honey in my games yall if your a good druid.

Also your ideas of good and evil are far too modern for my tastes. If my god teaches me that does 5 cows were each equally worth as much as the child, how is it evil, to take an eye for an eye, teaching the farmer a lesson in the process?!, as put forward in the Jewish bible? When considering good/evil in a fantasy game one must consider the point of view in which good/evil is being considered. - granted the trickery apply s chaotic tendancies over Lawful and maybe even neutral over good for sure, the killing of the child however does not imply evil and nor does seeking vengeance for the cows.

These people do not live in Modern Day London and the huge Morality placed on some things just would not be there.

By these standards Beholders shouldn't be evil because Gzemnid teaches them that they are more important than anyone else. GOOD vs EVIL should be read with regard to our values, otherwise we're going all relativistic and the actual strife loses its sense.

You're right, in the eye of the god of cattle 5 sheeps are far more Worth than a child...but then why a druid worships a god of cattle? Which is not the Nature, merely an aspect, which would look to a wolf as an enemy. But for a wolf to hunt a sheep IS Nature.

The "solution" highlighted in the module you were referring to is, in my opinion, simply wrong: the farmer would have had to relinquish his own cows to the offended party, and having to depend on that party for his own susteinance; I can't see any link between poisoning cattle and Killing and eating his own son, unless that was the fate of the rival family, and in this case I would see it fit for a Fate deity, not a Nature one (which is not based upon "an eye for an eye").

I won't cite the Bible on these matters, nor any sacred text, since it goes inevitably to hurt some personal spot with some reader.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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?

(This was asked upthread, but not answered.)

I think this is the best solution, and that the answer to this should be yes.

 

[Paraxis]

The druid has proficiency in all medium armors. That is just how proficiency works.

He just refuses to wear armor or use shields made of metal, it is a personal religious choice something core to all druids. There is no penalty for doing so, no loss of spells or abilities, because no druid will ever choose to wear metal armor or use a metal shield.

So a druid can wear studded leather as long as the studs are not metal, he can wear chain shirt, scale mail, breast plate, or half plate because he is proficient in all of them because he is proficient in all medium armor, just if they are made of metal he will refuse to do so.

What happens if someone puts an unconscious druid in a breast plate, when he wakes up he takes it off. Simple, his choice is always to not use metal armor or metal shields, no divine intervention or cosmic forces at play.

The game tells you how you must roleplay this one aspect of your character, simple and straightforward.

Now the thing is to get your DM to let you purchase, craft, or find breastplate made from bone, shell, chitin, stone, crystal, magic wood or some other hard material that is not metal you can find in a fantasy world.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm not going to rehash the debate from the WotC forums that happened on this a while ago, but I will bring up some points.

1) I think it was a mistake for this to be in the book. It's the kind of goof that the designers would likely have done differently had that thought about it.
2) It is a mistake because it singles out druids as the only class where players do not have the option to play against type and suffer the consequences.
3) Rather than listing consequences, it eliminates player choice by dictating that you may not choose to do something if you take this class. This is the sole place in the entire ruleset that does this. Paladins can break their oaths and may or may not suffer consequences at the DMs discretion. But it doesn't say "a paladin won't break their oath."
4) This is in direct violation of the meta-rules of the game which state: "1. The DM describes the environment...2. The players describe what they want to do...3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions..."

Anything would be better than this. Even if it were, "A druid who attempts to don metal armor must make a Wisdom check or suffer intense apprehension causing them to take disadvantage to all attacks, checks, and saves for as long as they consider the action. If they do don metal armor, in addition to the former penalty, they take 1d6 psychic damage per day."

My dwarf wizard can choose to be an elf-loving hippy vegetarian. A paladin can choose to abandon his oath.

I can't, however, be a druid who abandons his oath. Druids lack free will. Choosing to be a druid means you lose the capacity to choose to wear metal armor.

Some people have a problem with that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Druids revere nature. I guess they aren't as explicit about it as they are about some things, but you'd be hard pressed to convince any DM that animal abuse can be reconciled with revering nature.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The druid has proficiency in all medium armors. That is just how proficiency works.

He just refuses to wear armor or use shields made of metal, it is a personal religious choice something core to all druids. There is no penalty for doing so, no loss of spells or abilities, because no druid will ever choose to wear metal armor or use a metal shield.

This has been my sticking point, as its ridiculously childlike in its viewpoint. Really? So under no circumstance would a druid wear metal armor? What about to prevent the end of all creation. Tharizdun is going to destroy the world unless Treehugger Pete wears this helmet for a minute... well, it was a good run.

Moreover, this is in fact, the only listed "sin" for druidism that is treated in terms of absolutes. You can choose to burn down your sacred grove and open up a toxic waste dump in the spot, but your devotion to not wearing metal is such that you cannot even choose to violate that tenant of your religion. You'd think that level of blind dogmatism would be reserved for the lawful faiths. Its just absurdly simplistic. Some kind of penalty, but still allowing the character the choice, would have been better (particularly given how they suffer no other metal related restrictions).

Though I kind of want to run a game similar to the A-Team, where they have to drug the druid, knock him out, or hypnotize him to get into the Apparatus of Kwalish. "I ain't gettin' in no metal, fool!"