D&D 5E Druids and metal armor

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

No, because that wouldn't be "revering nature", which all druids explicitly do. They don't spell it out in such exacting detail, but they don't need to - it really should be obvious.

 

[Paraxis]

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 druid the druid, knock him out, or hypnotize him to get into the Apparatus of Kwalish. "I ain't gettin' in no metal, fool!"

A helm is not armor, it is a helm. So druids can wear magic helms for instance no problem. Same for Apparatus of Kwalish, it is not armor so no issues.

So druids can ride in apparatus of kwalish while wearing a helm of brilliance, gauntlets of ogre power, and bracers of armor. As they do this the druid could be eating live kittens and burning down the forest so the strip mining gnomes can bring in the lighting train railroad. Now if and what are the repercussions of these actions is between the DM and his player. The player just can't say his character goes and puts on a suit of chainmail.

 

[Joe Liker]

Thank you, [mention=6677017]Sword-of-Spirit[/mention]. The Wizards community thread mirrors my thought exactly. I was surprised this topic hadn't come up here; that makes more sense to me now that I know it has been discussed somewhere.

Also, stone armor? Seriously? Even in a world of magic, that just seems silly to me. Mineral components such as obsidian, perhaps, but that's not the same as stone.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As they do this the druid could be eating live kittens and burning down the forest so the strip mining gnomes can bring in the lighting train railroad. Now if and what are the repercussions of these actions is between the DM and his player. The player just can't say his character goes and puts on a suit of chainmail.

In any game I've ever played, the a druid player who wanted to burn down a forest would be confronted by a DM telling him or her that she doesn't. (As the old saying goes, "Your character wouldn't do that.") In AD&D or 3E, you would probably just lose all of your powers forever (although 3E brought the possibility of Atonement).

In 5E, I think the DM is supposed to play nicely and just prevent that action from happening. Granted, it does seem somewhat out of place in terms of basic action resolution: the player describes the action that he or she wants the character to take, and the DM describes the resolution as the character catching herself before it going through with it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

In any game I've ever played, the a druid player who wanted to burn down a forest would be confronted by a DM telling him or her that she doesn't. (As the old saying goes, "Your character wouldn't do that.") In AD&D or 3E, you would probably just lose all of your powers forever (although 3E brought the possibility of Atonement).

And that's FINE. What isnt fine is to have the game adopt my friend's toddler' line of thinking of "Superman wont hit good guys". Which is great I guess if you run your games thinking like a 3 year old. Otherwise you get into "what if's". What if he's tricked? What happens if he tries to punch a good guy/wear metal armor?

In 5E, I think the DM is supposed to play nicely and just prevent that action from happening. Granted, it does seem somewhat out of place in terms of basic action resolution: the player describes the action that he or she wants the character to take, and the DM describes the resolution as the character catching herself before it going through with it.

This, on the other hand, I have a hue problem with. I decide what my character does. Furthermore, what's truly stupid about this, is its the ONLY listed thing a druid "won't" do, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the only instance of this kind of silly absolute. Other followers of other faiths have rules they break all the time, but this one stupid rule is so ingrained in druids they cant even choose to do otherwise.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

And here was me thinking that you chose a character class based on its appeal to you as a concept, rather than on the basis of immediately subverting it to pimp out your powers. Admittedly, I am old school AD&D in background, but the concept of Good or Evil Druids strikes me as odd - there's a subheading on p64 of the 5e PHB that says "Preserve the balance" and goes on to describe Druidical motivation as being about balance and favouring neither one side nor the other. Which means Neutral, no? Maybe that's just me.
(incidentally, "true" neutral always struck me as potentially being the cruellest alignment in the sense that winter is cruel or a river in flood is cruel - not evil, just implacably itself which can be cruel. It's hard to play.)
I personally find the idea of a Druid desiring to wear heavy clanking armour at odds with the central concept of the class who live in the wilds and are at one with nature, and have always kind of viewed Druids as a subset of Clerics - a very specific, specialised subset. Limitations on getting good AC seem overly meta, min-max in nature as opposed to character-led.
I know I'm in the minority here, but this does rather appear to be a discussion where, ahem, the woods aren't being seen for the trees.
At the end of the day, if you find a rule not to your liking, change it. The rules explicitly say this, a generosity on the part of the designers that many games do not offer.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A helm is not armor, it is a helm. So druids can wear magic helms for instance no problem. Same for Apparatus of Kwalish, it is not armor so no issues.

So druids can ride in apparatus of kwalish while wearing a helm of brilliance, gauntlets of ogre power, and bracers of armor. As they do this the druid could be eating live kittens and burning down the forest so the strip mining gnomes can bring in the lighting train railroad. Now if and what are the repercussions of these actions is between the DM and his player. The player just can't say his character goes and puts on a suit of chainmail.

I think you missed the point. Sub in chain shirt for the rest, and tell me if it makes sense.

And if he can, it makes the "druids wont do this, never ever to infinity times a jillion" even more friggin stupid. Wait a minute, you can wear a metal helmet, but watch that stud to leather ratio buddy. You can hide inside a metal robot, not not a chain shirt?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And here was me thinking that you chose a character class based on its appeal to you as a concept, rather than on the basis of immediately subverting it to pimp out your powers.

This is mostly just armchair theorizing over a stupidly written rule segment. To my knowledge, no one is really chomping at the bit to play a druid in Iron Man armor. Though he could drive a giant robot per Paraxis, so that's good to know. I'm not sure where the line between power armor and piloted robot is. 50% bigger?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Other followers of other faiths have rules they break all the time, but this one stupid rule is so ingrained in druids they cant even choose to do otherwise.

Do they? Other faiths aren't as well-detailed, because each one is just a minor fraction of the Cleric class. To contrast, the entire Druid class is dedicated to just one single faith, so it makes sense that they can go into greater detail with it. Who's to say that some other faiths - which aren't so well-detailed within the book - might not have similarly unbreakable rules?

Of course, the real answer is that this is just the PHB, and it's a game designed for newcomers so they avoid going into complicated penalties and hypotheticals for situations that shouldn't come up very often. It would be like saying that Wizards can't wear armor, instead of saying that they can't cast spells that have a somatic component while wearing armor - it's not going to come up anyway, so there's no point in wasting valuable real estate in explaining what would happen if it did. It's entirely possible that they'll go into more detail whenever they get around to releasing The Next Book of Druids.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm not sure where the line between power armor and piloted robot is. 50% bigger?

Checks the Rifts Campaign Guide...its in there somewhere....hehe.