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

[weldon]

I think I have a number of sensible justifications for saying metal isn't a part of nature. You disagree.

I do disagree. The only way I can understand your statement is to presume that your definition of nature is limited to plants and animals. If you use the commonly accepted definition of nature, then your justifications are… lacking.

If you want to argue that the entire concept of druids is based not so much on their love of nature as it is based on their love and reverence of plants and animals, then I think you have a fair point given the lore presented in this and past editions of the game.

I find this biocentrism limiting.

P.S. I'm still not sure how metalwork is less natural than leatherwork

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think there is a paradigm issue here - insofar that the fantasy genre operates on symbolism rather than scientific appraisals of material qualities.

Think Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Leatherwork is natural ‘cos it comes from horse or cow skin; metal is unnatural ‘cos it comes from rocks.

The fifth element is not Boron, etc.

 

[Krakenspire]

Eberron probably has the best take on druids there is for philosophy as they were in the world from the ground up (well Darksun too I suppose)

Ashbound hate magic and want it destroyed.
Children of Winter want everything to die and start the cycle rebirth cycle of nature.
Gatekeepers want to stop planar invasions from Xoriat (the far realm).
etc...

All these druids could be evil or good, depending on their methodologies, Ashbound can educate, run for office and outlaw magic or just burn down the magic schools and execute the mages. Gatekeepers may go to extremes to stop the monsters in Khyber being released to the point of blood rights and sacrifice etc.... though normally that's not their thing.

Then when you look at multiclass druids in the world, sometime the dip into druid just means they were out in the woods a long time, others because they world for House Vadalis and want to better breed Magebred Horses or Griffons. Not even connected to nature in a "grand worship scale" whatsoever just really good at using magic to breed animals and make more money for their Dragonmarked house. Maybe a wizard/druid is just really good at creating owlbears and horrid animals for sale as guards etc... how is that a big worship of nature.

Another example of a wacky druid is those that work with oozes. Oozemasters used to be a druid prestige class IIRC. Nothing natural about oozes from a certain perspective.

Druids also are closely connected to the elemental planes and elemental power (esp in Darksun IIRC).

So with some of these druids where does the no metal armour logic come in? It's most likely a balancing attempt to some extent but what about when you multiclass? Can I wear whatever armour I want then? Whats the drawback. Also suppose I use fancy elemental armour from the plane of earth, or ice armour etc... That's pretty cool and something an elementally focused druid could use. And can't druids use dragonscale armour anyways??

 

[The Crimson Binome]

P.S. I'm still not sure how metalwork is less natural than leatherwork

It requires less technological infrastructure to process animal hides than to process metal in quantities sufficient to make armor.

Druids represent an older society, which is apart from the modern civilization that makes metal armor. They can make small metal items, like spear points and sickles and whatnot, but nothing like chain armor or plate or anything.

 

[Anthony Terry]

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.

Any DM would be hard pressed telling me that a persons job, yes being a druid is portayed as a job, similar to being a cleric, overides their personal charecteristics when making a life death decesion. A Neutral Evil druid would revere nature because of the power it grants him, hed have respect for it in most cases and would respect animals as much as he would other people, but a neutral evil person would glady kill someone theyd never met before for 5gp if they knew theyd get away with, i see no reason why because of my job id view animals differently.

 

[Anthony Terry]

Iron is the most abundant element on earth. It's one of the most common elements in the crust of our planet. Beyond iron, the vast majority of elements on the periodic table are metals.

I was clearly getting this the wrong way around, am I thinking of perhaps steel that uses iron + something else :S?

Thanks for clearing that up for me btw, Ironically i take things like this quite seriously in my games so a bit embarrassed i was so far off the mark, lets me know when i read i quite often just read what i want to see.

I've only ever allowed the bronze in one campagain and ironically as mentioned by allot of people in here, it backfired on the druid who died to a heat metal spell.

 

[Anthony Terry]

I do disagree. The only way I can understand your statement is to presume that your definition of nature is limited to plants and animals. If you use the commonly accepted definition of nature, then your justifications are… lacking.

If you want to argue that the entire concept of druids is based not so much on their love of nature as it is based on their love and reverence of plants and animals, then I think you have a fair point given the lore presented in this and past editions of the game.

I find this biocentrism limiting.

P.S. I'm still not sure how metalwork is less natural than leatherwork

Its not hence why your find most druids are not wearing leather, their wearing animal hides or other such far more natural materials. Also an animal can die a natrual death, if you then decide to liberate your life long pet of its hide to further your ability to protect nature i can just about let this slip in my head as ok BUT look at this way, in allot of fantasy and i have a feeling this is what people were getting at with the no metal, natural power comes from the planet its self, some kind of natural magical power that a druid can tap into, it is suggested in many fantasy settings that activities such as mining etc interfere with this natural magic a great deal. Where as using the corpse of an already dead animal would not have such a large scale impact, even if done in large quantities.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Any DM would be hard pressed telling me that a persons job, yes being a druid is portayed as a job, similar to being a cleric, overides their personal charecteristics when making a life death decesion. A Neutral Evil druid would revere nature because of the power it grants him, hed have respect for it in most cases and would respect animals as much as he would other people, but a neutral evil person would glady kill someone theyd never met before for 5gp if they knew theyd get away with, i see no reason why because of my job id view animals differently.

I think you fail to appreciate the gulf between a job and a calling. Especially a calling of a religious nature, where your beliefs are by definition tied in with your actions. Your personal characteristics are intrinsically bound to your beliefs.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I was clearly getting this the wrong way around, am I thinking of perhaps steel that uses iron + something else :S?

Thanks for clearing that up for me btw, Ironically i take things like this quite seriously in my games so a bit embarrassed i was so far off the mark, lets me know when i read i quite often just read what i want to see.

I've only ever allowed the bronze in one campagain and ironically as mentioned by allot of people in here, it backfired on the druid who died to a heat metal spell.

Steel is iron plus carbon. Iron on its own is wrought iron (gates, hinges, that type of thing). Far too brittle to make usable armour. Steel is the material used to make swords, chain mail, etc.

 

[weldon]

metal is unnatural ‘cos it comes from rocks.

My brain hurts.

It requires less technological infrastructure to process animal hides than to process metal in quantities sufficient to make armor.

I can get behind the idea that druids favor less technology, but then why single out armor when swords are fine? That's the part that doesn't make sense. If druids are against metalworking technology, then shouldn't they be offended by all metal objects?

Also, the level of technology here is pretty low. Bronze age started around 3000BC. Iron age around 1200BC.

I was clearly getting this the wrong way around, am I thinking of perhaps steel that uses iron + something else :S?

Thanks for clearing that up for me btw

Thanks for taking my comments in good humor. Steel is iron hardened with carbon (as barrelhouse pointed out). But steel (as we know it) wasn't widely available until much more recent times. The romans used iron for armor and weapons and sometimes hardened the outside of finished pieces with carbon (but it wasn't really steel all the way through).

Once people figured out how to work iron it quickly replaced bronze (copper and tin alloy) in large part because it was more easily available. Tin is relatively hard to find, and iron is abundant. Iron swords are probably not much harder than bronze swords and didn't win out because it was harder or held a sharper edge than bronze. It won out in large part because once the right techniques were discovered (you have to work iron at higher temperatures), there was a lot more of it available.

i have a feeling this is what people were getting at with the no metal, natural power comes from the planet its self, some kind of natural magical power that a druid can tap into, it is suggested in many fantasy settings that activities such as mining etc interfere with this natural magic a great deal.

Then shouldn't there be a blanket prohibition against using metal objects, not just armor? I don't really have a problem with someone saying that druids are focused on living things and shun metal. There's a logic to that position. I could also see a different fantasy world where druids are in love with rocks and minerals. That has its own logic.

I'm arguing against the inconsistency of saying that druids are perfectly fine with metal unless its armor.

Steel is iron plus carbon. Iron on its own is wrought iron (gates, hinges, that type of thing). Far too brittle to make usable armour. Steel is the material used to make swords, chain mail, etc.

The problem isn't that iron is too brittle, but that it's too soft. Iron swords would bend in battle. Adding carbon (to make steel) makes the metal more brittle (not less) and steel wasn't usable for weapons until tempering was discovered to remove some of the brittleness (while still keeping most of the hardness). Cast iron has even more carbon than steel and is extremely brittle. You can break it with a hammer.

Still some of the techniques were known relatively early. The romans used case hardening (using carbon) on their iron pieces to put a hard layer on finished armor. This is a little different than working with steel directly though.




Of course, now I've wandered off the original point which is that I don't understand the logic of the restriction against metal armor. I'm OK if you say that druids are focused on living things, or they are against technology, with restrictions that follow from their ethos. But then I also think that there is the possibility of a druid circle that is focused on rocks and minerals. Why not have animal, mineral and vegetable druid circles?