• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I think there are still people who aren't quite getting Point 1. For some of us, we don't really care what mechanical bonuses the druid can get. If they couldn't wear any armor at all, that wouldn't be the main problem. This quote most succinctly exemplifies the other position, so I'm going to directly provide an example situation to address it.



Here's a situation to consider--and it's what many of us are most concerned about. Someone creates a druid character. They have no intention of wearing metal armor. They are totally on board with the lore, etc. They most definitely are a druid.

In the course of playing the game, during their adventures, they end up in a situation where if they don't put on metal armor, someone dear to them is almost certainly going to die. Maybe the whole party needs to put on some plate guard uniforms to properly disguise themselves in a situation where the druid's magic and shapeshifting can't provide another option. They party (and players) put their heads together and try to come up with other solutions, and they are drawing a blank. Even the DM (who didn't expect them to end up in this predicament, but they took an unexpected path) can't see an easy way out of it. The player of the druid has a choice: their character puts on this armor, or everything is jeopardized, and the NPC(s) they are trying to rescue will likely die (the party is tough enough to fight their way out without a TPK--but no one has access to magic to raise the dead).

What we have here is an interesting moral (for the druid) dilemma. Do I break my vows and put on this metal armor to save those I care about, or do I maintain those ritual requirements and let them die?

What happens, in your (general "you"), game, if this druid player thinks it over, weighs the decisions, role-plays his druid PC agonizing over it, and then says: "I tentatively reach out and touch the armor with displeasure. I glance around with a somewhat ashamed look on my face, which then changes to determination. I put on the armor."

Do you, as DM, say: "No, your character won't do that"?

That's the main point a lot of us care about.
And the edge case scenario trope that always gets brought up on this topic that has never actually happened as far as I know goes to .... Sword of Spirit!!!! I'm surprised it only took us to post #77 to bring up this argument.

Listen, if this actually did happen, your DM is being an ****. There is no such thing as a scenario like this being forced on the player and DM. The DM controls the world, there is no reason to do this.
 

Ohmyn

Villager
And the edge case scenario trope that always gets brought up on this topic that has never actually happened as far as I know goes to .... Sword of Spirit!!!! I'm surprised it only took us to post #77 to bring up this argument.

Listen, if this actually did happen, your DM is being an ****. There is no such thing as a scenario like this being forced on the player and DM. The DM controls the world, there is no reason to do this.
What? You've never had a situation where a party has had to infiltrate by disguising themselves as the enemy? Never had a situation where a type of armor was provided to grant the players the ability to fight a specific otherwise overpowering enemy? Never had someone take reference from Legend of Zelda and have something like magnetic boots and metal walls, or metal boots and magnetic walls, for some interesting puzzle solving? In 3.5, I've seen Druids opt to wear metal in areas of anti-magic because they had a mission and knew the debilitating effects didn't matter anyway.

Heck, I've primarily been DM among my group rather than playing, and I myself have put players into a situation where they had to don the armor of past guardians in order to revitalize ancient trees that the guardians of the past once protected. Sadly, if this restriction were enforced as a rule, any Druid of the party would be left out, staring at the armor and being 100% unwilling to wear it, no matter how much the Druid knew it was necessary to save the natural world.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
What? You've never had a situation where a party has had to infiltrate by disguising themselves as the enemy? Never had a situation where a type of armor was provided to grant the players the ability to fight a specific otherwise overpowering enemy? Never had someone take reference from Legend of Zelda and have something like magnetic boots and metal walls, or metal boots and magnetic walls, for some interesting puzzle solving? In 3.5, I've seen Druids opt to wear metal in areas of anti-magic because they had a mission and knew the debilitating effects didn't matter anyway.

Heck, I've primarily been DM among my group rather than playing, and I myself have put players into a situation where they had to don the armor of past guardians in order to revitalize ancient trees that the guardians of the past once protected. Sadly, if this restriction were enforced as a rule, any Druid of the party would be left out, staring at the armor and being 100% unwilling to wear it, no matter how much the Druid knew it was necessary to save the natural world.
If this situation ever came up (I've been DMing for decades, it never has) I'll deal with it. There will be an alternative or the group will figure out another way around. Maybe - gasp - the druid will simply transform into a small animal. If only they had the ability to change shape. Or we'll just execute the druid, they believe in reincarnation anyway, right? :uhoh:

I would no more have a scenario where the druid was forced to wear metal armor than I would require a LG Oath of Devotion Paladin to choose between a demon and a devil.
 

Ohmyn

Villager
So, I know some of us (me, at least) are having some fun. But, to be serious for a second-

A lot of this will depend on communication and presentation. There are very few DMs that I know that enjoy or look forward to a player presenting a "list of grievances" or lengthy explanations as to why core mechanics do not apply their special character.

In many campaigns (such as mine), that player would not be invited to return. Because life is too short.

On the other hand, as a generalization, most DMs are VERY happy when a player is engaged, enthusiastic, and has a player concept that the love and are excited by. Most DMs would bend over backwards to help that player realize their character concepts through communication and an iterative process of determining how to make the player's vision work.

These two things- presenting a list of grievances v. talking to the DM about how to accomplish your player concept - might seem similar, and maybe that's what you had in mind, but they aren't the same thing.

In other words, speaking personally, I can tell you that if a new player came to me with a list of everything about the rules and my campaign I needed to change on Day 1 because the player said so, there would be no Day 2.

But if the player said, "Hey, I have this idea for a Mountain Dwarf Druid that works with metal," you can bet that I'd be right there working to make it happen.

In closing- there are only two things I can't stand in D&D. People who are intolerant of the playing choices of others, and Paladins.
Well the purpose of having a list of grievances is being prepared to address why something is problematic. I don't just walk in with a list and say "read this". In the case of something poorly written in the PHB, it's best to be able to present why it's poorly written as opposed to just saying it is. If the DM says no, being able to bring up every possibly grievance addresses potential story or character problems that can come up later. This is particularly important for point 1 of my rant. If an important choice comes up, but my DM is going to tell me that I can't make the big choice because "your character won't do that", then I don't want to play a Druid with that DM, because I don't want to have my actions decided for me based on some undefined lore.
 

Parmandur

Legend
What? You've never had a situation where a party has had to infiltrate by disguising themselves as the enemy? Never had a situation where a type of armor was provided to grant the players the ability to fight a specific otherwise overpowering enemy? Never had someone take reference from Legend of Zelda and have something like magnetic boots and metal walls, or metal boots and magnetic walls, for some interesting puzzle solving? In 3.5, I've seen Druids opt to wear metal in areas of anti-magic because they had a mission and knew the debilitating effects didn't matter anyway.

Heck, I've primarily been DM among my group rather than playing, and I myself have put players into a situation where they had to don the armor of past guardians in order to revitalize ancient trees that the guardians of the past once protected. Sadly, if this restriction were enforced as a rule, any Druid of the party would be left out, staring at the armor and being 100% unwilling to wear it, no matter how much the Druid knew it was necessary to save the natural world.
This is a table issue, which is what Sage Advise points out, not a rules issue.
 
1) Personally, my major gripe with the limitation is that it's the only rule I've seen in any edition of D&D that most DMs interpret as literally forcing a decision on a player's character.
There are lots of rules that force choices on players, even if they won't use the phrase "will not".

You chose a fighter? You will not be casting spells (depending on archetype).
You chose a rogue? You will not be using Beast Shape.
You chose a cleric? You will not be using Extra Attack.
You chose a human? You will not be seeing in the dark.
You chose a druid? You will not be using metal armour.

In my mind, if a player says, "I want my druid to wear metal armour." it is exactly the same as a player saying, "I want my human to have darkvision."

Forcing a player to have their druid character not wear metal is not reducing their agency any more than forcing them to have their human character not see in the dark is. They knew druid's don't wear metal armour when they chose the class.

Now, if the player comes with a question, "How can my druid get better armour?" then GM and player can have a conversation. The same as when a player says, "My human character is sick of blundering around in the dark, what can we do?"
 

Ohmyn

Villager
If this situation ever came up (I've been DMing for decades, it never has) I'll deal with it. There will be an alternative or the group will figure out another way around. Maybe - gasp - the druid will simply transform into a small animal. If only they had the ability to change shape. Or we'll just execute the druid, they believe in reincarnation anyway, right? :uhoh:
I've also been DMing for a long time, but it's never come up for me solely because there's been no decision making limitations on characters until 5E. If a character had issues with a plan of action they could choose to contest the decision, and give their reasons for doing so, and the party could try to work something out. They also have the option of accepting any penalties associated with a decision if they felt it the best option for the greater good. The point is it's a decision of the players to decide how their characters are going to attempt to challenge the obstacles presented by the DM.

I would no more have a scenario where the druid was forced to wear metal armor than I would require a LG Oath of Devotion Paladin to choose between a demon and a devil.
The book practically challenges the DM to do stuff like that. The tenants serve as a role playing guideline to the player, but they don't control their choices. The PHB specifies that sometimes the right path may prove too demanding, a situation may call for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes them to transgress on their oath. There is nothing that says they can't go against their oath. If the oath controlled their actions, there wouldn't be a need for a player behind the character, and you may as well just hand it over to the DM.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I've also been DMing for a long time, but it's never come up for me solely because there's been no decision making limitations on characters until 5E. If a character had issues with a plan of action they could choose to contest the decision, and give their reasons for doing so, and the party could try to work something out. They also have the option of accepting any penalties associated with a decision if they felt it the best option for the greater good. The point is it's a decision of the players to decide how their characters are going to attempt to challenge the obstacles presented by the DM.



The book practically challenges the DM to do stuff like that. The tenants serve as a role playing guideline to the player, but they don't control their choices. The PHB specifies that sometimes the right path may prove too demanding, a situation may call for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes them to transgress on their oath. There is nothing that says they can't go against their oath. If the oath controlled their actions, there wouldn't be a need for a player behind the character, and you may as well just hand it over to the DM.
I don't put my players into no-win situations. Feel free to run your games differently, just don't expect me to stick around if you force the issue without an alternative.
 

Dausuul

Legend
This is a table issue, which is what Sage Advise points out, not a rules issue.
There are lots of rules that force choices on players, even if they won't use the phrase "will not".
...
You chose a druid? You will not be using metal armour.
It's funny how half the people defending the "no armor" bit are saying "It's the rules, druids aren't allowed metal armor, stop trying to break the rules," and the other half are saying, "It's just a story restriction, it's not part of the rules, so why are you complaining?"
 

Ohmyn

Villager
There are lots of rules that force choices on players, even if they won't use the phrase "will not".

You chose a fighter? You will not be casting spells (depending on archetype).
You chose a rogue? You will not be using Beast Shape.
You chose a cleric? You will not be using Extra Attack.
You chose a human? You will not be seeing in the dark.
You chose a druid? You will not be using metal armour.

In my mind, if a player says, "I want my druid to wear metal armour." it is exactly the same as a player saying, "I want my human to have darkvision."
There's a big difference between a player picking a mechanical option, and forcing a decision on a character. The problem is that your examples are not "will not", they are "cannot". A human cannot see in the dark because they lack the physical ability. A Cleric does not use Extra Attack because they are physically incapable of doing so due to lack of martial training. Heck, they can still make the choice to do so, they'll simply fail in their effort because they lack the ability. A human can look around in the dark, they just won't see anything but darkness. A Cleric can go all in, but a single attack is the result of their maximum effort to strike as efficiently as possible, so they fail to achieve another blow.

Alternatively, my level 1 Fighter can stand in place all day trying to replicate the motions and chants to cast a Wizard's spell, it just won't happen because they lack the training to succeed. Druids, on the other hand, have no restriction preventing them from wearing metal armor. There's literally nothing stopping them if they choose to do so, and there's no penalty associated with doing so.

There's a world of difference between not flying because you don't have wings, and having wings but not flying because you don't want to. Maybe it's part of your story and you used to be a soldier that rained down death from the sky, and now you've sworn off flying. Even if you swore never to fly again, the moment you fall from the sky you still have full capacity to start flapping those wings if you want to live.

Forcing a player to have their druid character not wear metal is not reducing their agency any more than forcing them to have their human character not see in the dark is. They knew druid's don't wear metal armour when they chose the class.
Again, the difference is that humans can't see in the dark. The option is still there to move around in the dark. They can try to see, but they'll fail. Druids can wear metal. Nothing says they can't. One of a Paladin of Devotion's tenets is to not lie or cheat, but they can still do it, because nothing says they can't lie or cheat. Likewise, Druids say they won't wear metal armor, but they can still do it, because nothing says they can't wear metal armor.

The choice in any given situation is up to the player, and if you remove their ability to make a decision because "no, you won't do that", that's what it means to remove player agency.
 

Ohmyn

Villager
I don't put my players into no-win situations. Feel free to run your games differently, just don't expect me to stick around if you force the issue without an alternative.
See, the thing is, if you don't remove player agency, it's never a "no-win situation". They fully have the option to go against their own values if they feel it appropriate. I wouldn't call infiltrating the enemy, learning their plan, and saving hundreds of lives at the expense of having to set your personal values aside to be a "no-win". If there are mechanical penalties for going against their view, such as a 3.5 Druid losing their magic for 24 hours if they don metal, they can opt to deal with that for the greater good. That's not true with a DM ruling a player won't do something, and is the only case in which a "no-win situation" can possibly happen (not including something silly like a DM offering two death doors), which is why it's a bad concept to bring to the table.

It's funny how half the people defending the "no armor" bit are saying "It's the rules, druids aren't allowed metal armor, stop trying to break the rules," and the other half are saying, "It's just a story restriction, it's not part of the rules, so why are you complaining?"
And that's exactly a major problem with the wording and placement of the rule. People asked the game developers because of the confusion caused by the clause being slid into their proficiencies without explanation. The wording and placement makes people assume it's a mechanical restriction, but the Sage Advice says it's just lore, Druids don't lack the ability to wear it, and that nothing prevents a Druid from doing so besides their own choice not to.

The Sage Advice definitely makes it clear to me that the restriction is not one that has to be followed, because characters are allowed to make choices that go contrary to their tenets, but because it's listed in proficiencies people still stand by the fact that it is a mechanical restriction and that Druids will stop being Druids if they don't agree. Apparently they need to do more to make the point clear, as people don't even agree on what the Sage Advice is trying to say, but it seems they simply don't want to expand upon it.
 
And that's exactly a major problem with the wording and placement of the rule.
As I understand it, your issue is with the word "will". Is that correct? If the book had said, "Druid's can't wear metal armour." you would be OK?

If so, my advice is to not sweat it. D&D 5E is not a legal document where every word and phrase has a precise, consistent definition.

It's just a bunch of rules to maintain some balance across options. Humans can't see in the dark. Dwarves can't move at 30 ft per round. Low strength characters can't life heavy weights. Druid's can't wear metal armour.
 

Ohmyn

Villager
As I understand it, your issue is with the word "will". Is that correct? If the book had said, "Druid's can't wear metal armour." you would be OK?

If so, my advice is to not sweat it. D&D 5E is not a legal document where every word and phrase has a precise, consistent definition.
No, even if it just said "they can't", I'd still not be okay with it. Every time it's said that someone can't do something, a reason is given. If they had said, "Druids don't wear metal armor because it cuts off access to their spells", that's a good mechanical explanation that also covers the narrative. If they simply said "Druids can't wear metal armor", that still raises the question of why not, as well as what happens if they make the choice to do so. It's not really an inherent "story of the class" if every DM has to make it up because the class lacks a narrative.

It's just a bunch of rules to maintain some balance across options. Humans can't see in the dark. Dwarves can't move at 30 ft per round. Low strength characters can't life heavy weights. Druid's can't wear metal armour.
The confusion for people comes from the fact that the last point you make there is actually incorrect as per the rules. The Sage Advice specifically says Druids can wear metal armor, so saying they can't is an incorrect interpretation. Humans lack the ability to see in the dark. Dwarves lack the ability to move 30'. Low strength characters lack the ability to lift heavy weight. All of these are things your character can still attempt, they simply won't succeed.

Druids do not lack the ability to wear metal armor, and it's explicitly stated in the Sage Advice that way. "Druids don't lack the ability to wear metal armor." It's said that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other "natural" materials. A preference is not the same as a requirement, but most DMs seem to be ruling that it is.
 

Parmandur

Legend
It's funny how half the people defending the "no armor" bit are saying "It's the rules, druids aren't allowed metal armor, stop trying to break the rules," and the other half are saying, "It's just a story restriction, it's not part of the rules, so why are you complaining?"
Precisely, that's the point: it will vary table to table, DM to DM, and that is the strength of this approach. There is no balance concern, if a DM lets the Dwarf Druid wear studded leather nothing is changed except the story which is always at the DMs discretion.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
There's a big difference between a player picking a mechanical option, and forcing a decision on a character.

When a player decided to play a champion fighter they decided their PC was not going to cast spells. When they chose to play a druid the decided their PC was not going to wear metal armor.


See, the thing is, if you don't remove player agency, it's never a "no-win situation".

A DM can always set up a situation the PCs can't win, just like they can always set up alternatives. It doesn't matter if that situation is a group of 1st level characters fighting a tarrasque, the only possible way to get out of a situation is for the champion fighter to cast teleport or the druid wearing metal armor. It's a DM choice to **** over the player because of their chosen class and restrictions.


The Sage Advice definitely makes it clear to me that the restriction is not one that has to be followed

All rules are optional. If you want druids in your campaign to wear metal armor, change the rule. I choose to follow the rules.
 

paintphob

Villager
2) It's not a universal limitation of the Druid's lore in 5th Edition, nor does it impose mechanical penalties. This is another big one as it runs contrary to the Sage Advice. First off, there is not a lot of real story given in 5E besides referencing to the Forgotten Realms and a little mix of Eberron, which is where the core 5E books reference their lore. This makes rules like this one quite ambiguous to people not familiar with the lore, because it doesn't offer any mechanical or story elements for enforcement.

What I mean by it not being a universal limitation of druidic lore in 5E is that it's not a universal limit in the Forgotten Realms lore. The PHB says that some Druids venerate the forces of nature themselves, but that most are of the Old Faith, devoted to one or more of the nature deities worshiped in your setting. It is also stated that different druidic sects hold different philosophies about the proper relationship of the spirits to each other and to the forces of civilization.

This is where Druids like the worshipers of Mielikki come in. Mielikki is known in Forgotten Realms as the Forest Queen, and is the neutral good goddess of autumn, Druids, dryads, forests, forest creatures and Rangers. As part of her lore, appearing as far back in 1E AD&D and still a patron deity in the Forgotten Realms pantheon for 5E, she permits her druids to wear all kinds of armor and to use all kinds of weapons that are permitted to Rangers, including those made of metal. As a tidbit for those of you that are looking for a reason to multiclass your Cleric (Life Cleric + Goodberry shenanigans ahoy), she's a goddess of Druids and Rangers, and as such her Clerics canonically almost always multiclass into one of those choices. Some of her more notable worshipers in lore were known to wear metal, such as prominent dwarven Druid Pikel Bouldershoulder, who was famous for wielding his "Sha-la-la" stick, and wearing his metal cooking pot as a helmet whenever he dived into battle.

Druids wearing metal in Forgotten Realms is not only canon to the lore, but they never lost anything if they did so. This shows that it does not interfere with their power and that it's simply an oath they might make, but it's not one they have to keep, nor is it one every Druid even chooses to make to begin with. In lore Druids have different philosophies, and will even prey on one another, so it makes no sense that every Druid spanning from the Elves in the grasslands, to the Dwarves in the caves/mountains, and even the Drow deep in the Underdark, will all arbitrarily agree "metal bad", especially when the cave and ground dwellers are surrounded by iron in the earth all around them.
You might want to recheck your sources for your information on Mielikki. She does not allow her druid followers to wear any armor they want. According to Faiths and Avatars (page 114) her specialty priests (Druids) can wear Padded, leather, or hide and wooden, bone, shell, or other nonmetallic shield.
She also has an exceptionally rare few ranger/druids called Shadoweir. They can wear any armor (with penalties to some ranger special abilities that accrue if wearing heavier than studded leather or elven chainmail). But, being 2E, all Shadoweir had to be half-elf.
I am not aware of any official Forgotten Realms accessory from 1e-4e that says a druid of Mielikki can wear metal armor. If you have a source, please let me know.
Regarding Pickle and his pot helmet. Consider the source for that character. The same person who gave us a dual scimitar wielding Drow Ranger in first edition, when only humans and half-elves could be Rangers.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Sure, and it's clearly spelled out under the Paladin of Devotion's tenants that they don't lie or cheat, but they can learn or use the Deception skill and they're still a Paladin.

It clearly says under Creating A Monk that those who leave their cloisters take their work seriously, but there's nothing saying that if they're laid back they're no longer a Monk. It also says that as a rule, Monks care little for material wealth and are driven to accomplish a greater mission rather than slaying monsters and plundering their treasure, but they can be a murder hobo and they're still a Monk.

It clearly states under Creating a Cleric that the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody, but you can choose to disavow all deities and you're still a Cleric. You can also be true neutral as a Cleric and not choose not to have any principles to embody. There is no mechanical requirement to follow a deity, and if you do have one, there is no mechanical requirement to even be of the same alignment.

There is likewise nothing that says as soon as a Druid decides to wear metal they stop being a Druid. If the story mechanics (which Sage Advice have stated the Druid restriction is) of what a character "won't" do are to be enforced as a mechanical limitation, then a lot of player characters at such tables don't actually have classes, because they're not playing to the class's story.
Uhhh... You are aware that those blurbs tend to list many different types in those descriptions? So, say, for instance the line about how critical the god is and the not follow specific divine arent at odds, just different options, right?

See at this point it feels more like "hostile reading" looking for how it can be misconstrued instead of what it means.

As for devotion psladins, again, deception as a skill is not just for lying. Its also about hiding one's intent. So a high deception character might never lie but have a poker fsce from hell.

Also, of course, the paladin class doesnt have Deception on its skill options but even if it did, there are lots of other oaths. Of course, the deception could come from background, say the life before you took the oath. Etc.

These are not problems or conflicts though hey, if they also make someones list of greivances that will certainly help inform potentiak GMs.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I think there are still people who aren't quite getting Point 1. For some of us, we don't really care what mechanical bonuses the druid can get. If they couldn't wear any armor at all, that wouldn't be the main problem. This quote most succinctly exemplifies the other position, so I'm going to directly provide an example situation to address it.



Here's a situation to consider--and it's what many of us are most concerned about. Someone creates a druid character. They have no intention of wearing metal armor. They are totally on board with the lore, etc. They most definitely are a druid.

In the course of playing the game, during their adventures, they end up in a situation where if they don't put on metal armor, someone dear to them is almost certainly going to die. Maybe the whole party needs to put on some plate guard uniforms to properly disguise themselves in a situation where the druid's magic and shapeshifting can't provide another option. They party (and players) put their heads together and try to come up with other solutions, and they are drawing a blank. Even the DM (who didn't expect them to end up in this predicament, but they took an unexpected path) can't see an easy way out of it. The player of the druid has a choice: their character puts on this armor, or everything is jeopardized, and the NPC(s) they are trying to rescue will likely die (the party is tough enough to fight their way out without a TPK--but no one has access to magic to raise the dead).

What we have here is an interesting moral (for the druid) dilemma. Do I break my vows and put on this metal armor to save those I care about, or do I maintain those ritual requirements and let them die?

What happens, in your (general "you"), game, if this druid player thinks it over, weighs the decisions, role-plays his druid PC agonizing over it, and then says: "I tentatively reach out and touch the armor with displeasure. I glance around with a somewhat ashamed look on my face, which then changes to determination. I put on the armor."

Do you, as DM, say: "No, your character won't do that"?

That's the main point a lot of us care about.
Yet, is anybody taking this as a case where we would say that in such a trap scenario or even setup such a trap without giving that pkayer or character guidance beforehand about "in this setting"???

I mean, really, it sounds like any number of ye olde jerk-GM paladin traps where they are presented with choding between losing paladinhood or letting folks die (or other horror) with vague unspecific honor codes.

Even if such a scenario came out organically in my game you as gm make sure the player knows what his character would about consequences that you have decided, if any, for such a choice. Maybe it means atonements later? Gm setting choice.

But nobody is saying (other than the folks wanting to argue how bad it is) that this is actual meant to be taken as some actual mental block that prevents the choice being made.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
It seems to be more of a suggestion than an actual rule.

I simply don't see the wiggle room other people read into it. They "will not" wear metal armor. Seems pretty darn clear to me.

This is getting repetitive: if you don't like the rule ignore it when you're DM.
 

Advertisement

Top