So, I know there's a rule with druids that they don't wear metal armor, but what about if said druid is multi-classed as a fighter or paladin? Do they get to use metal heavy armor? That's probably a DM preference thing, but I just want to see more opinions on that.
In the Class Features for the Druid, it states, "druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal" which is a specific restriction for the class and is not changed by multiclassing.
Druids start with proficiency in Light Armour and Medium Armour.
"What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes."
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Stormknight is also correct. You have to START as a Fighter or Paladin to get proficiency in Heavy Armor, so you'll either want to M.Class as a Cleric with Heavy Armor from the domain or use a feat.
I know this is an old post and I haven't played for a very long time, but I'd always thought that the 'Druids don't wear metal' rule wasn't based so much on a preference as that it conflicted with their abilities - shapechanging, certain spells, extra noise may affect spell effect or limit somatic gestures....so maybe the "Druid Explodes" from a casting in metal that went terribly wrong - maybe DM prerogative.
There have been many posts on this topic. All we really have is what the book says, some advice by the designers, some advice by random people on the internet, and what your group agrees to. To that end, there is no indication in the PHB that there is any penalty for wearing metal armor or reason for the restriction, only that they "will not" do it. You can invent any reason why druids may not want to wear armor in your world that you'd like - that is really between the DM and the group at your table (as well as whether to even stand by using that restriction).
An easy solution is to make medium armor out of natural resources. Chain mail made from alligator scales, or some lizard creature. Scale Mail out of dragon scales, or breast plate and half plate out of some other animal. Have your PCs be creative on how they want to create armor out of some animal hide, or have them work with their DM about how they can create their armor.
I have all my druid characters that I make have a distaste for metal as a flaw, that way I can role play it out of fun. My Scimitar is made out of bones, while the handle is charred wood. Fun ideas like that.
Multiclassing would still give your druid the idea that they don't like it, if they started as a druid. If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
While it's true that if a druid has this belief, he wouldn't be able to just decide to ignore it, but that's not always true - the notion that ALL druids have this same education or philosophy not only limits player agency and creativity, but isn't mirrored anywhere in any other class, subclass or feat in the game (except maybe battlerager barbs, which everyone agrees are stupid).
Yes, this fits most 'classic' druids, but no one even agrees on the reason for it - a social taboo? does it prevent wild shape or spells? is it because of Heat Metal trauma? this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option, not something that should be forced on a character. I have a fighter/druid multiclass that got his magic from the deck of many, what sense does it make for him to suddenly stop being able to use metal?
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
While it's true that if a druid has this belief, he wouldn't be able to just decide to ignore it, but that's not always true - the notion that ALL druids have this same education or philosophy not only limits player agency and creativity, but isn't mirrored anywhere in any other class, subclass or feat in the game (except maybe battlerager barbs, which everyone agrees are stupid).
Yes, this fits most 'classic' druids, but no one even agrees on the reason for it - a social taboo? does it prevent wild shape or spells? is it because of Heat Metal trauma? this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option, not something that should be forced on a character. I have a fighter/druid multiclass that got his magic from the deck of many, what sense does it make for him to suddenly stop being able to use metal?
I'm all for changing stuff around for the sake of players having more agency and building the character they want. If my player asked me if they can play a druid that wears metal armor, I would allow it. Just like I would allow a warlock player to not have a patron and instead say they got their powers the way sorcerers do. I will never stop a player from playing a character they want because of the flavor in the book.
That said, we have to address this as houseruling. We can't say that it's within the text of the book that a druid can just choose to wear metal armor. The book clearly says they don't. It doesn't say why, but it definitely says they don't. If you want your druid to wear metal armor, then that's a house rule.
The way I see it is as if you were playing a vegan character and then asked the DM "What happens if my character eats meat?" or "Can I just play a vegan character that eats meat?" I mean...then your character is not vegan. And of course, you don't HAVE to play a vegan character, but if the book said "This group of people are all vegan" and you want to play one of them who isn't, then it's houseruling. Nothing against that, at all, don't get me wrong. I would definitely allow that.
The fact that there are no penalties in game mechanics for wearing metal armor doesn't mean the player is free to ignore it. It would be like saying "Can I play a lawful good character who kills people for fun, ignores all rules and laws, is extremely selfish, and enjoys people suffering?" Well...no. You can play a character like that, but then they wouldn't be lawful good. There's no rule that says what happens to a lawful good character who does all those things, but it's still not something that can be done by the book.
Same with the meat-eating vegan. You can play a meat-eater, just don't call them a vegan. And same with the druid. If you want a druid who wears metal armor, then you have to change the way druids work in your campaign. And that is fine, that's actually what I would do. But I wouldn't say I'm playing by the book anymore because "it's a taboo, so we're free to ignore it." That's not what the book says.
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
While it's true that if a druid has this belief, he wouldn't be able to just decide to ignore it, but that's not always true - the notion that ALL druids have this same education or philosophy not only limits player agency and creativity, but isn't mirrored anywhere in any other class, subclass or feat in the game (except maybe battlerager barbs, which everyone agrees are stupid).
Yes, this fits most 'classic' druids, but no one even agrees on the reason for it - a social taboo? does it prevent wild shape or spells? is it because of Heat Metal trauma? this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option, not something that should be forced on a character. I have a fighter/druid multiclass that got his magic from the deck of many, what sense does it make for him to suddenly stop being able to use metal?
I'm all for changing stuff around for the sake of players having more agency and building the character they want. If my player asked me if they can play a druid that wears metal armor, I would allow it. Just like I would allow a warlock player to not have a patron and instead say they got their powers the way sorcerers do. I will never stop a player from playing a character they want because of the flavor in the book.
That said, we have to address this as houseruling. We can't say that it's within the text of the book that a druid can just choose to wear metal armor. The book clearly says they don't. It doesn't say why, but it definitely says they don't. If you want your druid to wear metal armor, then that's a house rule.
The way I see it is as if you were playing a vegan character and then asked the DM "What happens if my character eats meat?" or "Can I just play a vegan character that eats meat?" I mean...then your character is not vegan. And of course, you don't HAVE to play a vegan character, but if the book said "This group of people are all vegan" and you want to play one of them who isn't, then it's houseruling. Nothing against that, at all, don't get me wrong. I would definitely allow that.
The fact that there are no penalties in game mechanics for wearing metal armor doesn't mean the player is free to ignore it. It would be like saying "Can I play a lawful good character who kills people for fun, ignores all rules and laws, is extremely selfish, and enjoys people suffering?" Well...no. You can play a character like that, but then they wouldn't be lawful good. There's no rule that says what happens to a lawful good character who does all those things, but it's still not something that can be done by the book.
Same with the meat-eating vegan. You can play a meat-eater, just don't call them a vegan. And same with the druid. If you want a druid who wears metal armor, then you have to change the way druids work in your campaign. And that is fine, that's actually what I would do. But I wouldn't say I'm playing by the book anymore because "it's a taboo, so we're free to ignore it." That's not what the book says.
I 100% agree with you on the meat-eating vegan and the psycho-LG characters, the only difference being - not wearing metal isn't an essential part of being a druid. Like you've said, if a vegan were to eat meat, they - by definition - simply wouldn't be vegan, but a druid that wears metal is just that - a druid that wears metal. I agree that this is houseruling, never claimed otherwise - I was just saying that the RAW on this is exceptionally stupid and needlessly limiting.
also the taboo thing was an example for what people see it as, I don't necessarily subscribe to that idea
I 100% agree with you on the meat-eating vegan and the psycho-LG characters, the only difference being - not wearing metal isn't an essential part of being a druid. Like you've said, if a vegan were to eat meat, they - by definition - simply wouldn't be vegan, but a druid that wears metal is just that - a druid that wears metal. I agree that this is houseruling, never claimed otherwise - I was just saying that the RAW on this is exceptionally stupid and needlessly limiting.
also the taboo thing was an example for what people see it as, I don't necessarily subscribe to that idea
I would argue that not wearing metal armor could be considered an essential part of being a druid. Druids "gain their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity". If the Nature Gods and unable / unwilling to give druid powers to those that wear metal armor or of the force of nature works in such a way it is blocked by metal armor then not wearing metal armor is an essential part of being a druid.
the 2014 PHB wording was clumsy in that is prohibited metal armor wearing druids but at the same time implied it was a choice with no (known) penalities for breaking it. I would have preferred something like "Druids will not were metal armor and are unable to use any of their druidic powers while wering metal armor". The 2024 PHB has removed the problem not not in the way I would have preferred, suddenly Druids are as happly in metal armor as anyone else they just need to learn how to use it.
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
While it's true that if a druid has this belief, he wouldn't be able to just decide to ignore it, but that's not always true - the notion that ALL druids have this same education or philosophy not only limits player agency and creativity, but isn't mirrored anywhere in any other class, subclass or feat in the game (except maybe battlerager barbs, which everyone agrees are stupid).
Yes, this fits most 'classic' druids, but no one even agrees on the reason for it - a social taboo? does it prevent wild shape or spells? is it because of Heat Metal trauma? this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option, not something that should be forced on a character. I have a fighter/druid multiclass that got his magic from the deck of many, what sense does it make for him to suddenly stop being able to use metal?
I'm all for changing stuff around for the sake of players having more agency and building the character they want. If my player asked me if they can play a druid that wears metal armor, I would allow it. Just like I would allow a warlock player to not have a patron and instead say they got their powers the way sorcerers do. I will never stop a player from playing a character they want because of the flavor in the book.
That said, we have to address this as houseruling. We can't say that it's within the text of the book that a druid can just choose to wear metal armor. The book clearly says they don't. It doesn't say why, but it definitely says they don't. If you want your druid to wear metal armor, then that's a house rule.
The way I see it is as if you were playing a vegan character and then asked the DM "What happens if my character eats meat?" or "Can I just play a vegan character that eats meat?" I mean...then your character is not vegan. And of course, you don't HAVE to play a vegan character, but if the book said "This group of people are all vegan" and you want to play one of them who isn't, then it's houseruling. Nothing against that, at all, don't get me wrong. I would definitely allow that.
The fact that there are no penalties in game mechanics for wearing metal armor doesn't mean the player is free to ignore it. It would be like saying "Can I play a lawful good character who kills people for fun, ignores all rules and laws, is extremely selfish, and enjoys people suffering?" Well...no. You can play a character like that, but then they wouldn't be lawful good. There's no rule that says what happens to a lawful good character who does all those things, but it's still not something that can be done by the book.
Same with the meat-eating vegan. You can play a meat-eater, just don't call them a vegan. And same with the druid. If you want a druid who wears metal armor, then you have to change the way druids work in your campaign. And that is fine, that's actually what I would do. But I wouldn't say I'm playing by the book anymore because "it's a taboo, so we're free to ignore it." That's not what the book says.
I 100% agree with you on the meat-eating vegan and the psycho-LG characters, the only difference being - not wearing metal isn't an essential part of being a druid. Like you've said, if a vegan were to eat meat, they - by definition - simply wouldn't be vegan, but a druid that wears metal is just that - a druid that wears metal. I agree that this is houseruling, never claimed otherwise - I was just saying that the RAW on this is exceptionally stupid and needlessly limiting.
also the taboo thing was an example for what people see it as, I don't necessarily subscribe to that idea
It sounds very arbitrary to say "This is essential, but this isn't." According to who? You? I agree with Jegpeg, it's all part of the same concept. It's part of the whole description of druids, not an isolated, random fun fact.
No. not eating meat is essential to being vegan since it's part of the definition. druids are (as Jegpeg so perfectly put it) casters who gain their magic either from a nature deity or from nature itself. If your god/philosophy/specific vibe of magic prohibits your specific druid from wearing metal, then that's an RP choice, and part of your character, but it doesn't define the class. Look at it that way -
All sorcerers innately cast spells, but not always gain their magic from lineage All barbarians use rage, but it doesn't always come from literal anger All paladins are bound to an oath, but aren't always in service of a god
in the very same way, all druids are natural casters, but not all of them are banned from metal
No. not eating meat is essential to being vegan since it's part of the definition. druids are (as Jegpeg so perfectly put it) casters who gain their magic either from a nature deity or from nature itself. If your god/philosophy/specific vibe of magic prohibits your specific druid from wearing metal, then that's an RP choice, and part of your character, but it doesn't define the class. Look at it that way -
All sorcerers innately cast spells, but not always gain their magic from lineage All barbarians use rage, but it doesn't always come from literal anger All paladins are bound to an oath, but aren't always in service of a god
in the very same way, all druids are natural casters, but not all of them are banned from metal
Saying that the definition of druids is nature magic and stuff, but not the armor part, is your own opinion. The book very clearly says they don't wear armor, so it's part of the definition. It's not even if the flavor part, it's in the Armor proficiency section. It's clearly intended to be part of it, not some fluff you can choose to ignore.
I don't see why this is so complicated. The book says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". That means...druids will not wear metal armor or shields. Period. That whole "If your specific god prohibits your specific druid..." thing is all your own creation. That's not what the book says, at all.
Your analogies are also completely flawed. "Not all paladins are in service of a god." The book NEVER says that all paladins are in service of a god. "Not all sorcerers gain magic from lineage." Again, the book is very clear about that. Some get their magic from exposure to unknown forces or otherworldly influence. The book says that. However, the book very clearly says that druids don't wear metal armor and shields. And like I said, the sorcerer and paladin stuff is written in the section that talks about the flavor of the class. Not where the game mechanics are. But druids not wearing metal is in the Armor proficiency section, so it's clearly intended to be part of the mechanics and not just fluff. When you want to know what kind of armor is available for your class, that's the section you look at. And that's the section that says no metal armor for druids.
If you want to let your players treat that as fluff, be my guest. I do the same. But I don't claim that it's RAW, because it's not.
I'm gonna say it one last time, so please listen: I'm not saying that per RAW, druids can wear metal. I specifically said that I know what the RAW on this is, and that it is stupid. If you refuse to even acknowledge what my claim is, maybe reconsider why you're arguing with me at all.
Secondly, the definition is what makes something what it is, not what abilities the rules give you, if you removed the paladin's oath, it would no longer be a paladin. I want you to look at me straight when you try to tell me that removing the metal restriction fundamentally alters the druid class. At level 18, barbarians get the Indomitable Might feature, yet it would be moronic to claim it is part of their definition. Want something more closely related to the topic? Clerics get medium armour proficiency, yet again, if you try to say that a cleric is defined by that proficiency, people are gonna look at you funny.
'That whole gods thing' isn't my creation, it's what jegpeg said in the message I responded to. please read the thread before responding.
When you stop treating the game as the two categories of 'rules' and 'fluff', and think of it as a lens through which you see a story, you can see the very real distinction between something like the Rage feature, which shows a tangible connection between story and mechanic - you channel your emotion to gain battlefield prowess, and the metal restriction, which simply states "you don't wear metal", with no explanation as to why. My problem with this feature is that it forces you to both abide by this rule, and find a reason for it, unlike how it was handled in previous editions. When you create a druid, you ask questions like "where do they draw their magic from?", "are they bound to some natural or divine entity?", "how do they manifest their wild shape" and so on, but not "why don't they wear metal?". Taking what should be a roleplay choice, and forcing every druid and GM to find an explanation to find an in-world explanation to a rule that doesn't really make sense, is what makes it, in my opinion, stupid.
As to the analogies, I wasn't trying to say (and I apologise if it sounded like so) that these are rules that should be treated as fluff, I was simply drawing the eye to how the book handles these rp choices, and to show the distinction between what defines the character, and the (very common) fluff, and ended with - 'in the very same vein, this is how this rule should be presented'. Again, not a statement about RAW, but how I think this should be handled.
Sorry if I come across as aggressive, it's been a long day and I'm very tired
I'm gonna say it one last time, so please listen: I'm not saying that per RAW, druids can wear metal. I specifically said that I know what the RAW on this is, and that it is stupid. If you refuse to even acknowledge what my claim is, maybe reconsider why you're arguing with me at all.
Secondly, the definition is what makes something what it is, not what abilities the rules give you, if you removed the paladin's oath, it would no longer be a paladin. I want you to look at me straight when you try to tell me that removing the metal restriction fundamentally alters the druid class. At level 18, barbarians get the Indomitable Might feature, yet it would be moronic to claim it is part of their definition. Want something more closely related to the topic? Clerics get medium armour proficiency, yet again, if you try to say that a cleric is defined by that proficiency, people are gonna look at you funny.
'That whole gods thing' isn't my creation, it's what jegpeg said in the message I responded to. please read the thread before responding.
When you stop treating the game as the two categories of 'rules' and 'fluff', and think of it as a lens through which you see a story, you can see the very real distinction between something like the Rage feature, which shows a tangible connection between story and mechanic - you channel your emotion to gain battlefield prowess, and the metal restriction, which simply states "you don't wear metal", with no explanation as to why. My problem with this feature is that it forces you to both abide by this rule, and find a reason for it, unlike how it was handled in previous editions. When you create a druid, you ask questions like "where do they draw their magic from?", "are they bound to some natural or divine entity?", "how do they manifest their wild shape" and so on, but not "why don't they wear metal?". Taking what should be a roleplay choice, and forcing every druid and GM to find an explanation to find an in-world explanation to a rule that doesn't really make sense, is what makes it, in my opinion, stupid.
As to the analogies, I wasn't trying to say (and I apologise if it sounded like so) that these are rules that should be treated as fluff, I was simply drawing the eye to how the book handles these rp choices, and to show the distinction between what defines the character, and the (very common) fluff, and ended with - 'in the very same vein, this is how this rule should be presented'. Again, not a statement about RAW, but how I think this should be handled.
Sorry if I come across as aggressive, it's been a long day and I'm very tired
No worries, I get it. And I don't think you were too aggressive. Maybe a little bit in the beginning, but it's all good.
I agree with you, though. I also said that I allow players to wear metal armor if they want to. It's obvious that the reason behind druids not wearing armor isn't a balance issue, it's a flavor thing. Like pre-Tasha's when races had fixed ability score increases. They said it themselves. So don't get me wrong, I don't like that either, and I'm happy they changed it in the 2024 rules.
You did make it sound it was RAW when you said "this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option". It's not an RP option. And I know now that you're aware of it, but maybe you could have said "it should be an RP option" or something. That's why I was saying it's actually RAW.
And I'm not stupid, I know that druids getting magic from nature is way more relevant than the metal armor thing. But just because something is more relevant doesn't mean that the other stuff is completely irrelevant. I didn't mean that changing the metal thing would basically make druids feel like a completely new class, of course not. But it's still (well, was?) part of the identity of the class. Like in 3.5, where barbarians couldn't read or write. Would it have a huge impact if one changed that? No, of course not. But it's still part of what makes the class what it is, even if not to the same degree as the rage feature.
In any case, I'm sorry if it sounded like I wasn't paying attention to what you were saying. I was, I was just replying to a specific part of your text and I wasn't clear about it, so my bad. <3
2024 druids do not have a restriction on metal armor, but there are two lev1 build choices, and only one has medium armor (and martial weapons). I took the other one. :) There is no 2024 restriction on shields (wooden not needed).
Yeah removing the metal restriction is maybe the only thing the 2024 edition did well, and even that is now barred behind a stupid "you must choose one of these playstyles" limit that just does not make sense.
I actually am ok with that. you either get martial weapons and medium armor or a free cantrip and a bonus on nature and arcana which are INt skills, so I'm not good at them. The open world discord community I'm playing in, those added skills help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I know there's a rule with druids that they don't wear metal armor, but what about if said druid is multi-classed as a fighter or paladin? Do they get to use metal heavy armor? That's probably a DM preference thing, but I just want to see more opinions on that.
According to the multi-classing rule, a druid level gives you the restriction on metal armour as well:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/customization-options#MulticlassingProficiencies
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIn the Class Features for the Druid, it states, "druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal" which is a specific restriction for the class and is not changed by multiclassing.
Druids start with proficiency in Light Armour and Medium Armour.
Also worth noting that multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin doesn't give proficiency in Heavy Armour.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Funny we had a long discussion about Druids and Metal Armor in here earlier.
As it turns out the rule says
"(druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" I never states they can't!
Literally it's a social taboo that has been "kept" since 1976, not an actual "rule" against it. It's fluff not a rule.
This gets covered in: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016
"What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes."
All a Druid needs to wear metal armor is to say "That social taboo is stupid, and I don't follow it."
Stormknight is also correct. You have to START as a Fighter or Paladin to get proficiency in Heavy Armor, so you'll either want to M.Class as a Cleric with Heavy Armor from the domain or use a feat.
Multiclassing Life Cleric gets you the Life Domain which is pretty awesome and the details of the forum discussion are here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/cleric/216-life-clerics-and-the-new-and-improved-good-berries
I know this is an old post and I haven't played for a very long time, but I'd always thought that the 'Druids don't wear metal' rule wasn't based so much on a preference as that it conflicted with their abilities - shapechanging, certain spells, extra noise may affect spell effect or limit somatic gestures....so maybe the "Druid Explodes" from a casting in metal that went terribly wrong - maybe DM prerogative.
There have been many posts on this topic. All we really have is what the book says, some advice by the designers, some advice by random people on the internet, and what your group agrees to. To that end, there is no indication in the PHB that there is any penalty for wearing metal armor or reason for the restriction, only that they "will not" do it. You can invent any reason why druids may not want to wear armor in your world that you'd like - that is really between the DM and the group at your table (as well as whether to even stand by using that restriction).
An easy solution is to make medium armor out of natural resources. Chain mail made from alligator scales, or some lizard creature. Scale Mail out of dragon scales, or breast plate and half plate out of some other animal. Have your PCs be creative on how they want to create armor out of some animal hide, or have them work with their DM about how they can create their armor.
I have all my druid characters that I make have a distaste for metal as a flaw, that way I can role play it out of fun. My Scimitar is made out of bones, while the handle is charred wood. Fun ideas like that.
Multiclassing would still give your druid the idea that they don't like it, if they started as a druid. If you were a fighter, using metal, and learned the powers to harness nature to become a druid, you wouldn't just dislike metal out of nowhere.
Yeah, that's exactly how deeply-held beliefs actually work. You just casually decide not to follow it, and go about your day. Also, it's not a social taboo, it's a personal taboo. The rule doesn't state "You don't wear metal armor because of what other Druids might think." Even if you put on the armor when you're alone, you'd still know you did it, therefore you don't do it.
It's not out of nowhere, it's part of your education and philosophy as you become a Druid. If you want to harness the power of nature while still wearing metal armor, you become a Nature Cleric, or a Ranger.
While it's true that if a druid has this belief, he wouldn't be able to just decide to ignore it, but that's not always true - the notion that ALL druids have this same education or philosophy not only limits player agency and creativity, but isn't mirrored anywhere in any other class, subclass or feat in the game (except maybe battlerager barbs, which everyone agrees are stupid).
Yes, this fits most 'classic' druids, but no one even agrees on the reason for it - a social taboo? does it prevent wild shape or spells? is it because of Heat Metal trauma? this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option, not something that should be forced on a character. I have a fighter/druid multiclass that got his magic from the deck of many, what sense does it make for him to suddenly stop being able to use metal?
I'm all for changing stuff around for the sake of players having more agency and building the character they want. If my player asked me if they can play a druid that wears metal armor, I would allow it. Just like I would allow a warlock player to not have a patron and instead say they got their powers the way sorcerers do. I will never stop a player from playing a character they want because of the flavor in the book.
That said, we have to address this as houseruling. We can't say that it's within the text of the book that a druid can just choose to wear metal armor. The book clearly says they don't. It doesn't say why, but it definitely says they don't. If you want your druid to wear metal armor, then that's a house rule.
The way I see it is as if you were playing a vegan character and then asked the DM "What happens if my character eats meat?" or "Can I just play a vegan character that eats meat?" I mean...then your character is not vegan. And of course, you don't HAVE to play a vegan character, but if the book said "This group of people are all vegan" and you want to play one of them who isn't, then it's houseruling. Nothing against that, at all, don't get me wrong. I would definitely allow that.
The fact that there are no penalties in game mechanics for wearing metal armor doesn't mean the player is free to ignore it. It would be like saying "Can I play a lawful good character who kills people for fun, ignores all rules and laws, is extremely selfish, and enjoys people suffering?" Well...no. You can play a character like that, but then they wouldn't be lawful good. There's no rule that says what happens to a lawful good character who does all those things, but it's still not something that can be done by the book.
Same with the meat-eating vegan. You can play a meat-eater, just don't call them a vegan. And same with the druid. If you want a druid who wears metal armor, then you have to change the way druids work in your campaign. And that is fine, that's actually what I would do. But I wouldn't say I'm playing by the book anymore because "it's a taboo, so we're free to ignore it." That's not what the book says.
I 100% agree with you on the meat-eating vegan and the psycho-LG characters, the only difference being - not wearing metal isn't an essential part of being a druid. Like you've said, if a vegan were to eat meat, they - by definition - simply wouldn't be vegan, but a druid that wears metal is just that - a druid that wears metal.
I agree that this is houseruling, never claimed otherwise - I was just saying that the RAW on this is exceptionally stupid and needlessly limiting.
also the taboo thing was an example for what people see it as, I don't necessarily subscribe to that idea
I would argue that not wearing metal armor could be considered an essential part of being a druid. Druids "gain their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity". If the Nature Gods and unable / unwilling to give druid powers to those that wear metal armor or of the force of nature works in such a way it is blocked by metal armor then not wearing metal armor is an essential part of being a druid.
the 2014 PHB wording was clumsy in that is prohibited metal armor wearing druids but at the same time implied it was a choice with no (known) penalities for breaking it. I would have preferred something like "Druids will not were metal armor and are unable to use any of their druidic powers while wering metal armor". The 2024 PHB has removed the problem not not in the way I would have preferred, suddenly Druids are as happly in metal armor as anyone else they just need to learn how to use it.
It sounds very arbitrary to say "This is essential, but this isn't." According to who? You? I agree with Jegpeg, it's all part of the same concept. It's part of the whole description of druids, not an isolated, random fun fact.
No. not eating meat is essential to being vegan since it's part of the definition. druids are (as Jegpeg so perfectly put it) casters who gain their magic either from a nature deity or from nature itself. If your god/philosophy/specific vibe of magic prohibits your specific druid from wearing metal, then that's an RP choice, and part of your character, but it doesn't define the class. Look at it that way -
All sorcerers innately cast spells, but not always gain their magic from lineage
All barbarians use rage, but it doesn't always come from literal anger
All paladins are bound to an oath, but aren't always in service of a god
in the very same way, all druids are natural casters, but not all of them are banned from metal
Saying that the definition of druids is nature magic and stuff, but not the armor part, is your own opinion. The book very clearly says they don't wear armor, so it's part of the definition. It's not even if the flavor part, it's in the Armor proficiency section. It's clearly intended to be part of it, not some fluff you can choose to ignore.
I don't see why this is so complicated. The book says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal". That means...druids will not wear metal armor or shields. Period. That whole "If your specific god prohibits your specific druid..." thing is all your own creation. That's not what the book says, at all.
Your analogies are also completely flawed. "Not all paladins are in service of a god." The book NEVER says that all paladins are in service of a god. "Not all sorcerers gain magic from lineage." Again, the book is very clear about that. Some get their magic from exposure to unknown forces or otherworldly influence. The book says that. However, the book very clearly says that druids don't wear metal armor and shields. And like I said, the sorcerer and paladin stuff is written in the section that talks about the flavor of the class. Not where the game mechanics are. But druids not wearing metal is in the Armor proficiency section, so it's clearly intended to be part of the mechanics and not just fluff. When you want to know what kind of armor is available for your class, that's the section you look at. And that's the section that says no metal armor for druids.
If you want to let your players treat that as fluff, be my guest. I do the same. But I don't claim that it's RAW, because it's not.
I'm gonna say it one last time, so please listen:
I'm not saying that per RAW, druids can wear metal. I specifically said that I know what the RAW on this is, and that it is stupid. If you refuse to even acknowledge what my claim is, maybe reconsider why you're arguing with me at all.
Secondly, the definition is what makes something what it is, not what abilities the rules give you, if you removed the paladin's oath, it would no longer be a paladin. I want you to look at me straight when you try to tell me that removing the metal restriction fundamentally alters the druid class. At level 18, barbarians get the Indomitable Might feature, yet it would be moronic to claim it is part of their definition. Want something more closely related to the topic? Clerics get medium armour proficiency, yet again, if you try to say that a cleric is defined by that proficiency, people are gonna look at you funny.
'That whole gods thing' isn't my creation, it's what jegpeg said in the message I responded to. please read the thread before responding.
When you stop treating the game as the two categories of 'rules' and 'fluff', and think of it as a lens through which you see a story, you can see the very real distinction between something like the Rage feature, which shows a tangible connection between story and mechanic - you channel your emotion to gain battlefield prowess, and the metal restriction, which simply states "you don't wear metal", with no explanation as to why. My problem with this feature is that it forces you to both abide by this rule, and find a reason for it, unlike how it was handled in previous editions. When you create a druid, you ask questions like "where do they draw their magic from?", "are they bound to some natural or divine entity?", "how do they manifest their wild shape" and so on, but not "why don't they wear metal?". Taking what should be a roleplay choice, and forcing every druid and GM to find an explanation to find an in-world explanation to a rule that doesn't really make sense, is what makes it, in my opinion, stupid.
As to the analogies, I wasn't trying to say (and I apologise if it sounded like so) that these are rules that should be treated as fluff, I was simply drawing the eye to how the book handles these rp choices, and to show the distinction between what defines the character, and the (very common) fluff, and ended with - 'in the very same vein, this is how this rule should be presented'. Again, not a statement about RAW, but how I think this should be handled.
Sorry if I come across as aggressive, it's been a long day and I'm very tired
No worries, I get it. And I don't think you were too aggressive. Maybe a little bit in the beginning, but it's all good.
I agree with you, though. I also said that I allow players to wear metal armor if they want to. It's obvious that the reason behind druids not wearing armor isn't a balance issue, it's a flavor thing. Like pre-Tasha's when races had fixed ability score increases. They said it themselves. So don't get me wrong, I don't like that either, and I'm happy they changed it in the 2024 rules.
You did make it sound it was RAW when you said "this alone should be enough to see that this is an rp option". It's not an RP option. And I know now that you're aware of it, but maybe you could have said "it should be an RP option" or something. That's why I was saying it's actually RAW.
And I'm not stupid, I know that druids getting magic from nature is way more relevant than the metal armor thing. But just because something is more relevant doesn't mean that the other stuff is completely irrelevant. I didn't mean that changing the metal thing would basically make druids feel like a completely new class, of course not. But it's still (well, was?) part of the identity of the class. Like in 3.5, where barbarians couldn't read or write. Would it have a huge impact if one changed that? No, of course not. But it's still part of what makes the class what it is, even if not to the same degree as the rage feature.
In any case, I'm sorry if it sounded like I wasn't paying attention to what you were saying. I was, I was just replying to a specific part of your text and I wasn't clear about it, so my bad. <3
2024 druids do not have a restriction on metal armor, but there are two lev1 build choices, and only one has medium armor (and martial weapons). I took the other one. :) There is no 2024 restriction on shields (wooden not needed).
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Yeah removing the metal restriction is maybe the only thing the 2024 edition did well, and even that is now barred behind a stupid "you must choose one of these playstyles" limit that just does not make sense.
I actually am ok with that. you either get martial weapons and medium armor or a free cantrip and a bonus on nature and arcana which are INt skills, so I'm not good at them. The open world discord community I'm playing in, those added skills help.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.