I am building my first Druid, and I noticed that the Class Features mention that they "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". However, weapons made of metal are a-okay starting with their choice of starting equipment, such as daggers for simple weapon choice. Most of their proficiencies are metal armor or weapons, even though the same section mentions the metal restriction.
So where do we draw the line, and why? If mining metal from the earth for armor and shields goes against a Druid's values, why do can they use metal weapons? Why does this restriction not apply to metal currency and jewels?
I enjoy the roleplay element, and my friend even mentioned that Dwarves would likely not be druids because of a clash in personal beliefs and livelihood. It opens up for a lot of possibilities, but the restrictions are too contradictory and blanketed to make sense. Would a Circle of Stars Druid care so much about wearing metal as a Circle of the Land druid? The PHB would lead me to believe that the answer is "yes", despite the fact that Stars druids are more connected to the cosmos abd divination than the earth itself. Then, Land druids can weld scimitars without any moral failing and that is supposed to make sense, too?
It's really a relic of older editions, when they actually were not allowed to wear metal armor or they'd lose their druid powers temporarily. In 5E the line was left in but there actually is nothing that stops them from putting on a suit of scale unless the GM decides to do so. The reasoning behind it was because druids were supposed to be nature-worshipers and thus tried to avoid using manufactured metal as much as possible- the weapon proficiency were left in mainly because restricting them to non-metal weapons would have left them with almost no options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal) Weapons: Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, spears
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal) Weapons: Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, spears
It's less a rule and more a guideline, since there's no actual penalties for doing so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We're talking about an argument between roleplay/flavor, and mechanics. There is no mechanical limitation, RAW, that would inhibit a Druid's (of any Circle) ability to use a weapon made out of metal. Whether or not a DM allows a Druid to play with items that are crafted from metal is entirely up to that DM, and the world and lore that they are using. You make the argument yourself in your OP - "the fact that Stars druids are more connected to the cosmos abd divination than the earth itself." You can make arguments for certain druids to mind, and others to not.
Similarly, remember that what you gain is a weapon proficiency, not at metal weapon proficiency. That is to say - yes, you gain proficiency with a dagger. But this is a fantasy game that doesn't have to abide by real world limitations. Nothing is saying that your dagger can't be made out of stone, or bone, or even, to really dig into your Stars Druid's theming, the core of an asteroid that crash-landed (Sokka from ATLA, anyone?).
Rather than worry too much about why the limitation is there, consider discussing with the DM of the campaign the Druid will be in on whether or not they'll permit what you're trying to accomplish, in what manner they will allow it, or what the alternatives are. And, if you don't like the answer they give, either find a new DM whose goals and opinions better align with your own, or consider another character whose limitations don't conflict with the manner in which you want to play the game.
I had a player about a half a year ago who was struggling to pick something nature-based but he wanted a warforged, because that was his favorite race to play. I assigned him in the campaign a PC I had built but never played of a warforged druid. Imagine his delight when he realized he could be a druid and not only wear worked metal, but WAS worked metal.
Definitely a vestigial line from older editions and one I think should be ignored.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
It's definitely a relic from older editions (that I used to play as a kid). But now there are so many things from older editions that are gone, e.g., alignment restrictions for classes. IMO, as someone who actually played the older editions, it's hard to make sense of allowing someone to play a lawful evil paladin or a druid that isn't neutral (both restrictions from older editions), but not allow a druid to wear some (not full) armor in some situations (e.g., temporarily in a hardcore dungeon adventure). I mean, now druids are allowed use wild shape but not actually transform into a beast (i.e., in Tasha's sub-classes, instead of wildshaping, druids can cast find familiar, assume starry form, awaken spores, summon a wildfire spirit). So much of the druid (and the game) has evolved, radically. Also, as noted, there are no stated consequences in the RAW for druids wearing armor. So, the consequences are a DM decision, which will vary. Sometimes enormously.
It's historic place makes perfect sense: It was an early D&D game design decision to add flavor to the class, and to make it mechanically "different" from other classes. Especially clerics. The druid wasn't just a "nature cleric" in the game; they were a force of nature.
In modern D&D there's no need for that distinction. At all. Lots of great replies on how to consider it today.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
If I am DMing and there is a druid this is something I would choose to "enforce" for thematic reasons.
That being said... I waste alot of time, either using inventions of mine or "borrowed" from other fantasy sources, to create wood/forest/natural things that can equate to what metal armor can be and find a way to bring it naturally into the story.
Granted if a player also said... "Nah man I just want to wear metal"... I wouldn't fight them on it (especially since I would just homebrewing equivalents anyways)... but is something I prefer to do.... but not enough to seriously care if they don't want it that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am building my first Druid, and I noticed that the Class Features mention that they "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". However, weapons made of metal are a-okay starting with their choice of starting equipment, such as daggers for simple weapon choice. Most of their proficiencies are metal armor or weapons, even though the same section mentions the metal restriction.
So where do we draw the line, and why? If mining metal from the earth for armor and shields goes against a Druid's values, why do can they use metal weapons? Why does this restriction not apply to metal currency and jewels?
I enjoy the roleplay element, and my friend even mentioned that Dwarves would likely not be druids because of a clash in personal beliefs and livelihood. It opens up for a lot of possibilities, but the restrictions are too contradictory and blanketed to make sense. Would a Circle of Stars Druid care so much about wearing metal as a Circle of the Land druid? The PHB would lead me to believe that the answer is "yes", despite the fact that Stars druids are more connected to the cosmos abd divination than the earth itself. Then, Land druids can weld scimitars without any moral failing and that is supposed to make sense, too?
It's really a relic of older editions, when they actually were not allowed to wear metal armor or they'd lose their druid powers temporarily. In 5E the line was left in but there actually is nothing that stops them from putting on a suit of scale unless the GM decides to do so. The reasoning behind it was because druids were supposed to be nature-worshipers and thus tried to avoid using manufactured metal as much as possible- the weapon proficiency were left in mainly because restricting them to non-metal weapons would have left them with almost no options.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Tradition.
Not sure exactly why but this sounds like a rule:
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It's less a rule and more a guideline, since there's no actual penalties for doing so.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We're talking about an argument between roleplay/flavor, and mechanics. There is no mechanical limitation, RAW, that would inhibit a Druid's (of any Circle) ability to use a weapon made out of metal. Whether or not a DM allows a Druid to play with items that are crafted from metal is entirely up to that DM, and the world and lore that they are using. You make the argument yourself in your OP - "the fact that Stars druids are more connected to the cosmos abd divination than the earth itself." You can make arguments for certain druids to mind, and others to not.
Similarly, remember that what you gain is a weapon proficiency, not at metal weapon proficiency. That is to say - yes, you gain proficiency with a dagger. But this is a fantasy game that doesn't have to abide by real world limitations. Nothing is saying that your dagger can't be made out of stone, or bone, or even, to really dig into your Stars Druid's theming, the core of an asteroid that crash-landed (Sokka from ATLA, anyone?).
Rather than worry too much about why the limitation is there, consider discussing with the DM of the campaign the Druid will be in on whether or not they'll permit what you're trying to accomplish, in what manner they will allow it, or what the alternatives are. And, if you don't like the answer they give, either find a new DM whose goals and opinions better align with your own, or consider another character whose limitations don't conflict with the manner in which you want to play the game.
I had a player about a half a year ago who was struggling to pick something nature-based but he wanted a warforged, because that was his favorite race to play. I assigned him in the campaign a PC I had built but never played of a warforged druid. Imagine his delight when he realized he could be a druid and not only wear worked metal, but WAS worked metal.
Definitely a vestigial line from older editions and one I think should be ignored.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
It's definitely a relic from older editions (that I used to play as a kid). But now there are so many things from older editions that are gone, e.g., alignment restrictions for classes. IMO, as someone who actually played the older editions, it's hard to make sense of allowing someone to play a lawful evil paladin or a druid that isn't neutral (both restrictions from older editions), but not allow a druid to wear some (not full) armor in some situations (e.g., temporarily in a hardcore dungeon adventure). I mean, now druids are allowed use wild shape but not actually transform into a beast (i.e., in Tasha's sub-classes, instead of wildshaping, druids can cast find familiar, assume starry form, awaken spores, summon a wildfire spirit). So much of the druid (and the game) has evolved, radically. Also, as noted, there are no stated consequences in the RAW for druids wearing armor. So, the consequences are a DM decision, which will vary. Sometimes enormously.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
It's historic place makes perfect sense: It was an early D&D game design decision to add flavor to the class, and to make it mechanically "different" from other classes. Especially clerics. The druid wasn't just a "nature cleric" in the game; they were a force of nature.
In modern D&D there's no need for that distinction. At all. Lots of great replies on how to consider it today.
That's the one!
Don't worry, they're changing it this year and then hopefully this issue will die.
When the class says druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal, it's a taboo a choice to self-limitation.
Here's a more elaborate Sage Advice Compendium Q&A on the subject:
I like how studded leather is considered to be a non-metal armor.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This discussion is covered to absolute death in this thread in the proper (druid) sub:
Read here before asking 'can druids wear metal armour?' - Druid - Class Forums - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E/RPG geek.
If I am DMing and there is a druid this is something I would choose to "enforce" for thematic reasons.
That being said... I waste alot of time, either using inventions of mine or "borrowed" from other fantasy sources, to create wood/forest/natural things that can equate to what metal armor can be and find a way to bring it naturally into the story.
Granted if a player also said... "Nah man I just want to wear metal"... I wouldn't fight them on it (especially since I would just homebrewing equivalents anyways)... but is something I prefer to do.... but not enough to seriously care if they don't want it that way.