5E RAW: Can druids wear studded leather?

Satyrn

Villager
Funniest way I ever handled a Druid wearing metal armor?
It became supernaturally heavy. Like unworthy Mjolnir.
Image the Druid struggling to get up. Even his companions can’t drag him across the ground. He’s just too heavy!
Would've been funnier if bears started attacking, too
 

Seramus

Adventurer
"You don't have to outrun the armored bears. You just have to outrun the heretic druid, and I've made sure you can" - Mother Nature
Even a Tenser’s Floating Disk shudders once or twice, then collapses to the ground with a metal wearing Druid on it. It’s just too much!
 
Strictly RAW, you can, because studded leather does not mention being made of metal but several types of armor directly do, providing a precedent that if an armor is majority metal it will be noted.

RAI is totally clear; Crawford is the head rules guy, and if he says studded leather is meant to be cool, that's that.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
I would argue that studded leather doesn't contain significant amounts of metal because, by RAW, it only weighs 3lb more than leather armour.
The description is 'close-set rivets'

If it wasn't for that 'close-set' part I would agree that there isn't a lot of metal.
 
Your druid PC wearing metal armor? Then obviously they are not a druid. How do I know? Because the rules state clearly that druids won't wear metal armor. Period, end of story. If the PC can do anything the player says they can do, then my first level fighter can cast wish. While the DM doesn't make the rules for the PCs, the PHB and associated books do and they are clear. Want to run it differently in your home campaign? Feel free.

The DM enforces the rules, the players don't.
But you forget, we're playing an exception based rules system- if Druids as a general rule "will not wear metal armor" or in other words, refuse to do so (which is the intent of those words, as described by Sage Advice) then Carlos, The Druid who has, as a portion of their personality, that they are willing to wear metal armor, becomes an exception to the general rule of "Druids will not wear metal armor" this functions because the rule makes a general assertion about the personality of druids, but the player determines the specific personality of their character, who is a specific instance of a druid's personality. Nothing else in the game invalidates specific exceptions using general rules the way you describe.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
But you forget, we're playing an exception based rules system- if Druids as a general rule "will not wear metal armor" or in other words, refuse to do so (which is the intent of those words, as described by Sage Advice) then Carlos, The Druid who has, as a portion of their personality, that they are willing to wear metal armor, becomes an exception to the general rule of "Druids will not wear metal armor" this functions because the rule makes a general assertion about the personality of druids, but the player determines the specific personality of their character, who is a specific instance of a druid's personality. Nothing else in the game invalidates specific exceptions using general rules the way you describe.
The rules are clear. A druid will not wear metal armor.

It is not a "general" rule. There are no exceptions. There is no clause saying they will only refuse to wear metal armor during a holy month. If you play a druid, you will not wear metal armor. Therefore if you are wearing metal armor you cannot be a druid. If you have no class levels I guess your PC is a commoner. :hmm:

Want to change the rule in your home campaign? Feel free. I have a few house rules of my own. I'm not "forgetting" anything, I'm just not ignoring the rule.
 

ChameleonX

Explorer
The restriction is on what the druid will do, not what the druid can't do. So, by the strictest interpretation of RAW, any armor the druid chooses to wear cannot be made of metal. Ergo, if a druid finds a suit of plate armor and wears it, then by RAW, that suit of plate armor cannot be (and, retroactively, was never) made of metal, or else the druid would not have worn it!

[\logic bomb]
 
The restriction is on what the druid will do, not what the druid can't do. So, by the strictest interpretation of RAW, any armor the druid chooses to wear cannot be made of metal. Ergo, if a druid finds a suit of plate armor and wears it, then by RAW, that suit of plate armor cannot be (and, retroactively, was never) made of metal, or else the druid would not have worn it!

[\logic bomb]
And in addition I always say that the RAW doesn't say they "don't" wear it, but rather they "won't", which is future tense. So they "won't" wear it for example tomorrow, but now in the present they "do". Yet when tomorrow comes, it's today and so they can still "do" wear it :D
 

Coroc

Explorer
And in addition I always say that the RAW doesn't say they "don't" wear it, but rather they "won't", which is future tense. So they "won't" wear it for example tomorrow, but now in the present they "do". Yet when tomorrow comes, it's today and so they can still "do" wear it :D
Nope in this case will not means rather they are not willing to like never, still funny though.
 

Coroc

Explorer
Strictly RAW, you can, because studded leather does not mention being made of metal but several types of armor directly do, providing a precedent that if an armor is majority metal it will be noted.

RAI is totally clear; Crawford is the head rules guy, and if he says studded leather is meant to be cool, that's that.
Well except that it is not, it is an unfunctional thing which never existed and they would have been cool if they canceled it for 5e. The only thing this would be good for is to save the opponent the work to put spikes on their cudgel.
 

Hussar

Legend
Well except that it is not, it is an unfunctional thing which never existed and they would have been cool if they canceled it for 5e. The only thing this would be good for is to save the opponent the work to put spikes on their cudgel.
Heh, you forget the power of the Grognard. If they had removed studded leather armor, people would be coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that D&D is dead and that 5e doesn't feel like D&D. :p
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
Heh, you forget the power of the Grognard. If they had removed studded leather armor, people would be coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that D&D is dead and that 5e doesn't feel like D&D. :p
You mean like the removal of banded armor?
 

Coroc

Explorer
studded leather wasn't made 'raw', it needed to be boiled/cured first
Oh please do not intermix it all, there was armor made of very hard and thick boiled leather, but no one would think of ruining it by placing studs into it and weakening its structure thereby.
Brigandine armor is the purely optical model for studded leather. But brigandine is metal plates with a fabric of linen or leather attached to the outside via "studs". People did not see the inside and thought it be just the fabric with studs.
 

Advertisement

Top