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

[SkidAce]

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

Coating their body in armor blocks their connection and "being one with nature", whereas holding a dagger blocks nearly nothing.

Or to use a slightly different philosophy, they object to covering their chakras with metal that inhibits the flow of their bodies energy.

Or...

Or...


It can make sense...IF we want it to. Some folks like it, and have always liked it. And that doesn't mean their logic meter is out of whack or anything.

Just differing viewpoints...

 

[Kobold Stew]

Of course we can explain it. None of that is relevant to the problematic positioning in the rule:

The only explanation given is part of a proficiencies list, in a parenthesis, with reference to equipment that is not present on the equipment list (non-metal shields).

As it is, every player and every table has to
(a) assume that wooden shields are available, have the same mechanical benefits as metal shields and cost the same
(b) make some sort of judgement call on armours
(c) make some sort of general-to-specific judgement call concerning racial proficiencies (e.g. dwarf)
(d) make some sort of general-to-specific judgement call concerning multi class proficiencies.
(e) reconcile the only actual behavioural restriction in 5e for PCs exists as part of one class's proficiency list

No one, I think, has a problem with (a)
Many people would have a problem with (b) -- there should just be a list of proficient armours.
(c) and (d) are not obvious; my instinct (that race and multi class are the "specific" cases, representing a subset of druids who behave differently) will not be that of everyone
(e) demonstrates that it's just bad writing.

Being able to imagine a reason why this might be so is irrelevant. Not spelling out the actual implications of the rule (how it affects druid magic and abilities, etc.) is what matters at the table. Since this will affect anyone playing a druid, ever, it should be clearer than this.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I bow to your superior smelting knowledge.
Interesting re: Circles devoted to specific bits.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think Druids are all about just protecting the fwuffy squiwells and pwetty twees, though. Earth - rocks and soil - are equally important parts of the Element of Earth. Which is why the whole process of making metal _could_ be seen by Druids as timbercide and rock rape.
I think for me the armour v weapon objection comes down to a practicality in them (nature teaches that, if nothing else), where they see the utility in getting their hands dirty by using a small number of metal weapons as a necessary evil in the endless battle against the bad guys, but being against encasing themselves in the stuff, as it puts too much of a barrier between them and the Elements in their natural form that they revere/draw their power from. FWIW, I view helmets as armour - it's just armour for the head. I'd suggest they can wear it, it won't burn their skin or anything, but it would be a last resort, and they would suffer disadvantage til it was doffed, and for giggles you could adapt the Wild Magic Sorceror table for backfiring when spell casting.

 

[SkidAce]

Being able to imagine a reason why this might be so is irrelevant. Not spelling out the actual implications of the rule (how it affects druid magic and abilities, etc.) is what matters at the table. Since this will affect anyone playing a druid, ever, it should be clearer than this.

Nope, look at the quote I was responding to.

That's all I was saying.

The rest of the debate can continue...

 

[Kobold Stew]

Nope, look at the quote I was responding to.

That's all I was saying.

The rest of the debate can continue...

I didn't think we were disagreeing. But, to make it clear that I was responding to the entire discussion and not you personally, I have removed the citation of your post.

 

[jgsugden]

I think you're pretty ok to allow druids to use metal armors if you feel that it makes sense for your game. In my world, the best druids (from a lore perspective) are dwarves. Why? Because they live in nature - in the dirt and rocks. They're also the best at manipulating nature and making metal armors and weapons. I'd allow dwarven druids to wear metal armors - if they gained the proficiency in it. There are NPC dwarven druids that are known for their crafting ability - and are more than happy to strut around town in some of their magical armor creations to show them off.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Being a druid (or cleric) is way more than just a job. It's not like going in to town, and you can decide to apprentice yourself to the blacksmith or the farrier or the druid. You have to actually believe in the cause you are championing, or else it doesn't work.

The Powers That Be cannot be tricked into granting power to someone who doesn't deserve it. If you are the kind of person who would wear metal armor, then you lack the proper mindset to become a druid, and you cannot gain levels in that class. This fluff is hard-coded into the setting. (You can feel free to change it at your own table, of course, or to work out some other interpretation which matches the facts of the situation.)

 

[jrowland]

Thread is TL;DR so apologies if I'm not adding anything new.

I've always viewed the Druid Restriction on armor as a sacred vow thing. It's like uber-hippies today who refuse to eat "processed" foods, or the Amish shunning technology past a certain point. Can they break their vow? sure. But to do so means to no longer be a uber-hippy, or Amish, or a Druid.

The game fails to mention what happens, and that is an unfortunate oversight. Since druid spellcasting is a magic benefit (we used to call it Divine and more recently Primal) it could simply be those divine/primal sources do not work with vow breakers. You know..."its magic".

My only problem with druids, all editions, is the lack of an Anti-Druid. A "blackguard" analogue would be cool...defiler? I digress.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You have to actually believe in the cause you are championing, or else it doesn't work. ... If you are the kind of person who would wear metal armor, then you lack the proper mindset to become a druid, and you cannot gain levels in that class.

None of this is in the text, and it continues to miss the key issues of proficiency, racial specialization, multi classing, etc. If it were at all this obvious, there would not be disagreement.

This fluff is hard-coded into the setting.

No; the fluff is hard-coded into the class's proficiencies list, without explanation or justification or supporting mechanics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

We're talking about fantasy based on an actual mytho-historical event, though. Wasn't it the Romans who encountered the Celts, giving rise to the whole "cold iron beats fey" lore? And the druids would have been on the same side as the fey, for that. They may have had bronze weapons and whatever other metal items they could make, but they didn't have iron chariots or breastplates or anything.

I wish I knew more of the actual story there, instead of just what I've picked up from pop culture, but druids aren't supposed to wear metal armor because the class is supposed to invoke the archetype of that pre-tech society. D&D is heavily based on enforced tropes. They could have come up with a more complicated way of saying why a druid won't wear metal armor, but they're also trying to keep the rules simpler in this edition.