If youfeel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elementsmixed with its game features; the two types of design gohand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. So there is the answer... :-)
I love that answer. If the DM's cool with it then he should definitely let you do it and just be sure to remember to throw in villains that can cast heat metal on you once in a while to remind you that you're breaking the taboo :D
I actually want to play a Tortle Druid. 19 AC with his wooden shield, and you can come up with wonderful backstories for this swampy turtle man who has a magical connection with nature.
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
EDIT: This fictional scenario is NOT about player agency, that's a separate topic. If you need to focus on player agency then assume this player and DM discussed this possibility in a session zero both sides were fine with it happening. Now that it happened there has to be a ruling on the result. That's the only point being made: that it's a ruling not a rule and therefore does not belong in the rule text alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraphs about what druids are and why.
What if the chef doesn't tell the vegan that the ratatouille is made with people? Is the vegan a cannibal? A vegan typically doesn't eat people, and might refrain from consuming people in their usual meals.
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
I would rule he's fine but he must expend all reasonable efforts to get out of it whenever it is feasible. But then if I'm the one ruling, I'm the DM, so I'm the one who did that to him.
o The DM can make a house rule that metal armor is allowed.
o The DM or player can reflavor the game mechanic to "cannot" instead of "will not", or say that wearing metal armor interferes with nature magic.
When you break it it down to its most fundamental element, it's a game mechanic.
RULE: Metal armor and metal shields are not available to druids.
You can accept the mechanic, or house rule it away. If you only dislike the description of the mechanic, you can change the description for your game. It's as simple as that. Personally I like the mechanic because (to me) it's an interesting wrinkle, and Druids are plenty powerful as they stand.
I would normally rule it identically to doing the same thing to a wizard, but I agree that the way the druid prohibition is written is problematic.
But if a Wizard takes a level of Fighter/Cleric, then they can wear full plate with no downside (as long as they have high enough Str).
If a Druid takes a level of Fighter/Cleric, they are still completely incapable of wearing metal armor per the RAW. The rule is that you cannot cast spells if you are wearing armor with which you are not proficient. Druid are proficient in medium metal armor, WotC just decided that you cannot have a choice to wear it.
I would greatly prefer it if they'd just written it as non-proficient.
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
Sorry, not sorry, but no. "Contrived" doesn't begin to describe this scenario. If you think it's thematically reasonable to strip a player of agency, forcing them to do something they otherwise wouldn't choose to do, and without any mechanic to get out of said compulsion, then you're a terrible DM.
This isn't just an unhelpful thought experiment. If this ever happened to me, I'd simply get up from the table and not play with them again. And if I ever did it to a player, I'd expect the same in return.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
This is a GREAT example!!!
Not really. As a player, whether you play John or Steven as a PC, either way your PC is not getting a peanut butter sandwich. As a player they're functionally the same.
As a child, my son did not like peanut butter and would not eat it. He then changed his mind, yet he is still my son. He functions just the same regardless of his choice.
Is your son a fictional character written into a book, requiring an errata from the author in order to change his mind?
In reference to you as a player, how is it functionally different if the book said "cannot" instead of "will not"? In either case, your character is not wearing metal armor. Correct?
My character is a fictional character who thinks wearing the skin of a dead animal isn't cool. I am a druid... I find it repulsive... So that should be good enough for any DM to agree with.
The Sage Advice Compendium states:
If youfeel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elementsmixed with its game features; the two types of design gohand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others.
So there is the answer... :-)
My point was it’s functionally the same for the player. As for your Druid not wanting to wear animal skin, I think that is a very neat and compelling character concept for a Druid. You can just re-skin it, no pun intended.
Your armor is not leather, it is multilayered, tightly woven vines from a rare ancient line of plants that are indigenous to your homeland.
That's fine and it has the same AC as a breastplate LOL
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
I would rule he's fine but he must expend all reasonable efforts to get out of it whenever it is feasible. But then if I'm the one ruling, I'm the DM, so I'm the one who did that to him.
o The DM can make a house rule that metal armor is allowed.
o The DM or player can reflavor the game mechanic to "cannot" instead of "will not", or say that wearing metal armor interferes with nature magic.
When you break it it down to its most fundamental element, it's a game mechanic.
RULE: Metal armor and metal shields are not available to druids.
You can accept the mechanic, or house rule it away. If you only dislike the description of the mechanic, you can change the description for your game. It's as simple as that. Personally I like the mechanic because (to me) it's an interesting wrinkle, and Druids are plenty powerful as they stand.
There is no game mechanic, that's why it's so easy to handwave. The mechanic would tell us what happens but literally nothing happens; they function exactly the same in a metal breastplate as in bone or leather. Any other result is a house rule, which again is totally fine and every table can make whatever decisions they want regarding every aspect of the game. But house rules are not rules.
The literal rule text is "Proficiences: Armor:Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" My argument is that parenthetical should either read something like "druids are not proficient in metal armor or shields", or (preferably, IMO) that parenthetical should be moved to where the rest of the not-rules are.
For example there's a paragraph just slightly higher up that reads "Druids are also concerned with the delicate ecological balance that sustains plant and animal life, and the need for civilized folk to live in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it." Why not add "As such, they typically refuse to wear metal armor or use shields primarily made of metal." as the next line? It would still be part of the druid persona, it would still make a character very unusual if they chose to wear metal armor or otherwise found themselves encased in it, and it would still leave it up to the table to determine the consequences of that druid wearing metal armor. Zero mechanical change, but it keeps the rules with the rules and the flavor with the flavor.
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
Sorry, not sorry, but no. "Contrived" doesn't begin to describe this scenario. If you think it's thematically reasonable to strip a player of agency, forcing them to do something they otherwise wouldn't choose to do, and without any mechanic to get out of said compulsion, then you're a terrible DM.
This isn't just an unhelpful thought experiment. If this ever happened to me, I'd simply get up from the table and not play with them again. And if I ever did it to a player, I'd expect the same in return.
The example was only about rules vs rulings, not about player agency, but I'm more than happy to reframe it:
It's session zero, nobody's playing yet. The table's chatting, everyone's getting excited to learn a little about each other's character choices. Beefy Fighter's player says "Whoa what, you're not allowed to wear metal armor?" Druid's player says, "Yeah, I mean I can still use medium armor if it's bone or some other natural material, but you know -- druids and nature." Fighter: "What if like you're about to be attacked by something nasty, and I throw you a metal shield and shout to put it on, it's your only chance?" Druid: "No way, my dude'd just risk dying. You'd have to like... I dunno, grapple me and force it onto my arm..."
Both players look at the DM, and the Druid's player asks, "Actually, what *would* happen if someone put a metal shield on my character's arm?"
The scenario hasn't actually happened yet so no one has to leave in a huff. The druid's player even came up with the idea himself, so clearly this is a hypothetical and no one is concerned about player agency during this particular discussion. It's all about clarifying RAW. The rule text only says that the druid is proficient in light armor, medium armor, and shields and "will not" wear metal, so if a shield were forcibly jammedheroicallyfastened onto his arm the only mechanical result would be +2 AC. Anything beyond that is flavor and house rules.
Whatever that made-up party decides beyond that is up to them, but it's not A Rule and doesn't belong on the same line as actual rule text such as armor proficiencies. It belongs in the thousands of words of prose that describes the flavor of a druid.
The example was only about rules vs rulings, not about player agency, but I'm more than happy to reframe it:
It's session zero, nobody's playing yet. The table's chatting, everyone's getting excited to learn a little about each other's character choices. Beefy Fighter's player says "Whoa what, you're not allowed to wear metal armor?" Druid's player says, "Yeah, I mean I can still use medium armor if it's bone or some other natural material, but you know -- druids and nature." Fighter: "What if like you're about to be attacked by something nasty, and I throw you a metal shield and shout to put it on, it's your only chance?" Druid: "No way, my dude'd just risk dying. You'd have to like... I dunno, grapple me and force it onto my arm..."
Both players look at the DM, and the Druid's player asks, "Actually, what *would* happen if someone put a metal shield on my character's arm?"
The scenario hasn't actually happened yet so no one has to leave in a huff. The druid's player even came up with the idea himself, so clearly this is a hypothetical and no one is concerned about player agency during this particular discussion. It's all about clarifying RAW. The rule text only says that the druid is proficient in light armor, medium armor, and shields and "will not" wear metal, so if a shield were forcibly jammedheroicallyfastened onto his arm the only mechanical result would be +2 AC. Anything beyond that is flavor and house rules.
Whatever that made-up party decides beyond that is up to them, but it's not A Rule and doesn't belong on the same line as actual rule text such as armor proficiencies. It belongs in the thousands of words of prose that describes the flavor of a druid.
What I find strange is the obsession with even having this discussion. Because we wouldn't be having it with literally any other class.
If a Dexterity fighter, an archer, were to stick to only light armor because of their Dexterity bonus, we wouldn't question it. Their proficiency with medium armor, heavy armor, and shields might never come up, never be used, and we wouldn't think anything of it. We wouldn't think lesser of them.
The druid player is already choosing abide by that restriction. Asking what would happen if somebody forcibly jammed a metal shield onto their arm is inane. Nor is it heroic. It's never heroic to make someone do something they would otherwise choose not to. If you don't trust someone to do their job, to pull their own weight, and do it there way, then why are you even there in the first place? Why play if you're going to force other people to play your way?
There is no game mechanic, that's why it's so easy to handwave. The mechanic would tell us what happens but literally nothing happens; they function exactly the same in a metal breastplate as in bone or leather. Any other result is a house rule, which again is totally fine and every table can make whatever decisions they want regarding every aspect of the game. But house rules are not rules.
The literal rule text is "Proficiences: Armor:Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" My argument is that parenthetical should either read something like "druids are not proficient in metal armor or shields", or (preferably, IMO) that parenthetical should be moved to where the rest of the not-rules are.
For example there's a paragraph just slightly higher up that reads "Druids are also concerned with the delicate ecological balance that sustains plant and animal life, and the need for civilized folk to live in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it." Why not add "As such, they typically refuse to wear metal armor or use shields primarily made of metal." as the next line? It would still be part of the druid persona, it would still make a character very unusual if they chose to wear metal armor or otherwise found themselves encased in it, and it would still leave it up to the table to determine the consequences of that druid wearing metal armor. Zero mechanical change, but it keeps the rules with the rules and the flavor with the flavor.
Cool. So there's no game mechanical disallowing Druids to wear metal armor. This means if you jump into a group with a Druid character, there's no need to talk to the DM and ask for a special ruling that allows you to wear metal armor. Correct?
There is no game mechanic, that's why it's so easy to handwave. The mechanic would tell us what happens but literally nothing happens; they function exactly the same in a metal breastplate as in bone or leather. Any other result is a house rule, which again is totally fine and every table can make whatever decisions they want regarding every aspect of the game. But house rules are not rules.
The literal rule text is "Proficiences: Armor:Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" My argument is that parenthetical should either read something like "druids are not proficient in metal armor or shields", or (preferably, IMO) that parenthetical should be moved to where the rest of the not-rules are.
For example there's a paragraph just slightly higher up that reads "Druids are also concerned with the delicate ecological balance that sustains plant and animal life, and the need for civilized folk to live in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it." Why not add "As such, they typically refuse to wear metal armor or use shields primarily made of metal." as the next line? It would still be part of the druid persona, it would still make a character very unusual if they chose to wear metal armor or otherwise found themselves encased in it, and it would still leave it up to the table to determine the consequences of that druid wearing metal armor. Zero mechanical change, but it keeps the rules with the rules and the flavor with the flavor.
Cool. So there's no game mechanical disallowing Druids to wear metal armor. This means if you jump into a group with a Druid character, there's no need to talk to the DM and ask for a special ruling that allows you to wear metal armor. Correct?
Yep! As long as it's not also heavy armor, because that's a clearly defined rule.
It's also still unusual so I wouldn't be surprised if the DM asked about it, but if they did I would expect it to be a thematic question along the lines of "why did your character become an adventurer?" and not a technical question like "why are you breaking the rules?"
The druid player is already choosing abide by that restriction. Asking what would happen if somebody forcibly jammed a metal shield onto their arm is inane. Nor is it heroic. It's never heroic to make someone do something they would otherwise choose not to. If you don't trust someone to do their job, to pull their own weight, and do it there way, then why are you even there in the first place? Why play if you're going to force other people to play your way?
I'm not forcing anybody to play any kind of way in my scenario. These are imaginary friends discussing unclear rules before the game even starts. Even if the druid's player decided "well I guess my character would immediately die from shock if that ever happened" nobody would flip the table because it hasn't actually happened. The other players and DM all care for the druid's player and, noting that decision, wouldn't then be a bunch of jerks and try to make it happen in-game. At least, my fictional players aren't jerks, I won't speak for everyone's imagination.
This discussion only ever happens because there is non-rule text "forcibly jammed" into a line of rule text, otherwise nobody would choose to discuss it. That's the whole point.
If the line about metal armor were just up in the paragraphs instead of the proficiencies then the rules would be clear, the flavor would also be clear, and there would still be plenty of druids that steadfastly refuse to wear metal armor purely because they are druids. They wouldn't need a mechanical detriment, they would follow it because they really enjoy that bit of flavor text and it is inherently part of being a druid to them. But because it's on an out-of-character line that is defining what they can and cannot wear, it leads to inconsistencies and arguments.
There's also some text that says "Druids hate that which is unnatural, including undead" so why aren't there a bajillion threads arguing over spore druids getting Animate Dead? Because that line is in the paragraphs therefore doesn't apply to 100% of druids everywhere, it's just defining the general/typical/common druid. The typical druid abhors undead, but a spore druid might love the one they just brought up to fight alongside them. The typical druid abhors elemental evil, but a naughty wildfire druid might be convinced that you know what, fire really IS the best element and should keep consuming everything forever. The typical druid will never wear metal armor or don a metal shield, but (as others have mentioned here) a dwarven druid living in a mountain and coming from a blacksmith family? Of course they would choose to wear metal armor, it's much more natural than leather or wood armor to them.
Flavor text can still be an integral part of choosing a class or building a character. But it's confusing to call it a rule when the very same line that gives them options to not abide by that choice.
Edit: "The preamble that describes the flavor is in the opening descriptions. NOT wearing metal armor is literally listed in the Proficiencies section under Class Features." Yes I know, I've quoted it at least twice in this thread... That is exactly the problem I'm talking about, it belongs in the opening description, not under Proficiencies where it neither describes a proficiency (metal armor proficiency is not a thing) nor affects proficiencies (ignoring it has no mechanical effect). If it were in the right place people wouldn't ask this question, yet druids would mostly still not wear metal armor. Sounds like RAI if the goal is not wearing metal armor.
Bad call. The preamble that describes the flavor is in the opening descriptions. NOT wearing metal armor is literally listed in the Proficiencies section under Class Features.
Proficiencies
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 Tools: Herbalism kit Saving Throws: Intelligence, Wisdom Skills: Choose two from Arcana, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Religion, and Survival
When you read these discussions about it it's obvious that your take is not even the norm, let alone a universally understood interpretation. Irrespective of whether players like the rule, or the way it's written, it's the common understanding that it is a restriction. But hey, if you won't even discuss it first and that's how you roll, you do you.
This discussion only ever happens because there is non-rule text "forcibly jammed" into a line of rule text, otherwise nobody would choose to discuss it. That's the whole point.
The simplest interpretation of that line is that it is rules text. Just poorly written.
When you read these discussions about it it's obvious that your take is not even the norm, let alone a universally understood interpretation. Irrespective of whether players like the rule, or the way it's written, it's the common understanding that it is a restriction. But hey, if you won't even discuss it first and that's how you roll, you do you.
I mean you say that, but this thread also exists. As do many like it. Clearly I would discuss it, because I'm discussing it now.
The title of this thread is "read this before you ask (this common question because it's unclear)" and the OP says "yes you can wear metal" as if it were hard fact. I'm not saying it's hard fact, but I'm saying it's clearly far from universally understood that druids cannot wear metal armor. Otherwise why aren't there threads like "read this before you ask whether warlocks can wear heavy armor: they can"? Because it's obvious when the rules are kept in the rules and the personal choices are kept in the flavor paragraphs.
Even taking that example - a warlock absolutely could still physically wear heavy armor despite not being proficient with it. They don't, pretty much ever, because there's a mechanical penalty. So if they wanted druids not to ever wear metal armor all they needed to do was say "Armor: light armor, medium armor (druids are not proficient with metal armor)" and it wouldn't even be a question. Even in that case a druid could still choose to wear metal armor if they had a character concept that required metal armor, but they'd have to accept the penalties of not being proficient with it.
FWIW if I made a druid, by default I would not intend to wear metal armor. I'm not saying it's a bad rule, or even a bad "aspect of druids that is not a rule," I'm just saying it's not a rule and therefore should not be on the Proficiencies line. It neither describes nor affects anything the druid is proficient with.
The problem with saying that a druid isn’t proficient with metal armor is that armor is not classified by what it’s made out of. Magic Armor isn’t even required to be made out of particular materials, considering the strange material minor property,
The problem with saying that a druid isn’t proficient with metal armor is that armor is not classified by what it’s made out of.
Agree 100%, which is also why the existing text about not wearing metal armor doesn't belong on the Proficiencies list at all. If you can figure out what metal armor means when casting Heat Metal, then you can figure out what it means with regard to proficiency.
Giving it non-proficiency penalties was just a fallback suggestion for those who either like the line where it is or wanted a mechanical penalty, I'm not going to defend that as if it's the right solution. The right solution would have been to put it in the paragraph text.
You know, you really shouldn't divorce paragraphs from anything which provides additional context. It looks like you're trying to unfavorably tilt an argument in your favor.
The druid player is already choosing abide by that restriction. Asking what would happen if somebody forcibly jammed a metal shield onto their arm is inane. Nor is it heroic. It's never heroic to make someone do something they would otherwise choose not to. If you don't trust someone to do their job, to pull their own weight, and do it there way, then why are you even there in the first place? Why play if you're going to force other people to play your way?
I'm not forcing anybody to play any kind of way in my scenario. These are imaginary friends discussing unclear rules before the game even starts. Even if the druid's player decided "well I guess my character would immediately die from shock if that ever happened" nobody would flip the table because it hasn't actually happened. The other players and DM all care for the druid's player and, noting that decision, wouldn't then be a bunch of jerks and try to make it happen in-game. At least, my fictional players aren't jerks, I won't speak for everyone's imagination.
This discussion only ever happens because there is non-rule text "forcibly jammed" into a line of rule text, otherwise nobody would choose to discuss it. That's the whole point.
If the line about metal armor were just up in the paragraphs instead of the proficiencies then the rules would be clear, the flavor would also be clear, and there would still be plenty of druids that steadfastly refuse to wear metal armor purely because they are druids. They wouldn't need a mechanical detriment, they would follow it because they really enjoy that bit of flavor text and it is inherently part of being a druid to them. But because it's on an out-of-character line that is defining what they can and cannot wear, it leads to inconsistencies and arguments.
There's also some text that says "Druids hate that which is unnatural, including undead" so why aren't there a bajillion threads arguing over spore druids getting Animate Dead? Because that line is in the paragraphs therefore doesn't apply to 100% of druids everywhere, it's just defining the general/typical/common druid. The typical druid abhors undead, but a spore druid might love the one they just brought up to fight alongside them. The typical druid abhors elemental evil, but a naughty wildfire druid might be convinced that you know what, fire really IS the best element and should keep consuming everything forever. The typical druid will never wear metal armor or don a metal shield, but (as others have mentioned here) a dwarven druid living in a mountain and coming from a blacksmith family? Of course they would choose to wear metal armor, it's much more natural than leather or wood armor to them.
Flavor text can still be an integral part of choosing a class or building a character. But it's confusing to call it a rule when the very same line that gives them options to not abide by that choice.
Edit: "The preamble that describes the flavor is in the opening descriptions. NOT wearing metal armor is literally listed in the Proficiencies section under Class Features." Yes I know, I've quoted it at least twice in this thread... That is exactly the problem I'm talking about, it belongs in the opening description, not under Proficiencies where it neither describes a proficiency (metal armor proficiency is not a thing) nor affects proficiencies (ignoring it has no mechanical affect). If it were in the right place people wouldn't ask this question, yet druids would mostly still not wear metal armor. Sounds like RAI if the goal is not wearing metal armor.
It doesn't matter that the scenario is only hypothetical. What matters is that, in your scenario, the question of what would happen is even being raised. It matters that someone might disregard the consent of one of their fellow players. And it matters that you try to turn this into something heroic.
I cannot use the words I want to use to describe your thought process without violating the TOS.
It doesn't matter where the "flavor text" is situated or that there are other druids in a game who wouldn't wear metal armor. We don't care about NPC druids because they're a non-issue. NPC druids don't even wear armor (I've brought this up before), and there's no descriptive text saying they choose not to wear metal armor. We only care about PC druids and the rules governing them. And their rule is clear.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
I changed the color to make it easier for you to see.
Now, we don't need to wade into the finer points of druids and their relationship with undeath. Not only because I find it a distraction, but because that nuance is already parsed and well-reasoned in the Circle of Spores description. That said, I'm curious why you think worked metal armor, ore refined in fire to remove impurities, is more natural for, say, a dwarf druid than something from a mountain-dwelling creatures (such as the plates of a bulette, which has also been raised before) and alchemically-treated stone (which can be found in Storm King's Thunder). Both of which, mind you, have existed in the game since druids were opened up to more races than just humans and half-elves. So circa 2000 and D&D 3rd edition. And we haven't even touched on other special materials, like dragonhide and glassteel, or the products of the wood shape and ironwood spells.
I honestly don't know what's so dang confusing about people to choose to play a druid also choosing not to wear metal armor. It's a druid thing. And, again, we wouldn't question anyone else's armor choices. Yeah, they still could choose to wear metal armor anyway. But then they're breaking the taboo. And that taboo exists until the DM says it doesn't. So personal choice will change it, so why is the druid breaking the taboo? It's not for mechanical reasons, is it? The mechanics are merely an abstraction to facilitate storytelling and conflict resolution. No, this is about the character, not the player. If the answer is "I want my druid character to have a higher AC" then you aren't approaching the question from the correct angle. This shouldn't be a mechanical question. This should be a story question.
If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love that answer. If the DM's cool with it then he should definitely let you do it and just be sure to remember to throw in villains that can cast heat metal on you once in a while to remind you that you're breaking the taboo :D
I actually want to play a Tortle Druid. 19 AC with his wooden shield, and you can come up with wonderful backstories for this swampy turtle man who has a magical connection with nature.
A druid gets knocked unconscious in single combat. The villain knows how taboo it is for druids to wear metal, so while the druid is still unconscious, the villain squishes him into a shiny steel breastplate. The armor's fasteners are then somehow locked or made otherwise unreasonably difficult to open.
The druid wakes up 1d4 hours later. What happens? Are they still a druid? It's medium armor, which they are proficient with. They can still cast spells, they can attack without disadvantage. If someone were to attack them, the AC would have no penalty for being druid-worn-metal.
The druid HAS NOT chosen to wear it, but they're wearing it. Now what?
It's a contrived example but thematically reasonable since it's such a known taboo. In this case choice has been removed, so "cannot" vs "will not" is moot; even if the text said they cannot, without providing a consequence it still has to be up to the player and DM to decide what happens next.
If player and DM decide "nothing changes, he's fine" then that's as acceptable an answer as "the druid freaks out and is unable to cast until they remove the armor." But it's still a ruling, not a rule. So it doesn't belong in the stat block alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraph text where all the other "*typically* a druid *might*...." flavor stuff is.
EDIT: This fictional scenario is NOT about player agency, that's a separate topic. If you need to focus on player agency then assume this player and DM discussed this possibility in a session zero both sides were fine with it happening. Now that it happened there has to be a ruling on the result. That's the only point being made: that it's a ruling not a rule and therefore does not belong in the rule text alongside proficiencies. It belongs in the paragraphs about what druids are and why.
What if the chef doesn't tell the vegan that the ratatouille is made with people? Is the vegan a cannibal? A vegan typically doesn't eat people, and might refrain from consuming people in their usual meals.
I would rule he's fine but he must expend all reasonable efforts to get out of it whenever it is feasible. But then if I'm the one ruling, I'm the DM, so I'm the one who did that to him.
o The DM can make a house rule that metal armor is allowed.
o The DM or player can reflavor the game mechanic to "cannot" instead of "will not", or say that wearing metal armor interferes with nature magic.
When you break it it down to its most fundamental element, it's a game mechanic.
RULE: Metal armor and metal shields are not available to druids.
You can accept the mechanic, or house rule it away. If you only dislike the description of the mechanic, you can change the description for your game. It's as simple as that. Personally I like the mechanic because (to me) it's an interesting wrinkle, and Druids are plenty powerful as they stand.
I would normally rule it identically to doing the same thing to a wizard, but I agree that the way the druid prohibition is written is problematic.
I would greatly prefer it if they'd just written it as non-proficient.
Sorry, not sorry, but no. "Contrived" doesn't begin to describe this scenario. If you think it's thematically reasonable to strip a player of agency, forcing them to do something they otherwise wouldn't choose to do, and without any mechanic to get out of said compulsion, then you're a terrible DM.
This isn't just an unhelpful thought experiment. If this ever happened to me, I'd simply get up from the table and not play with them again. And if I ever did it to a player, I'd expect the same in return.
That's fine and it has the same AC as a breastplate LOL
There is no game mechanic, that's why it's so easy to handwave. The mechanic would tell us what happens but literally nothing happens; they function exactly the same in a metal breastplate as in bone or leather. Any other result is a house rule, which again is totally fine and every table can make whatever decisions they want regarding every aspect of the game. But house rules are not rules.
The literal rule text is "Proficiences: Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)" My argument is that parenthetical should either read something like "druids are not proficient in metal armor or shields", or (preferably, IMO) that parenthetical should be moved to where the rest of the not-rules are.
For example there's a paragraph just slightly higher up that reads "Druids are also concerned with the delicate ecological balance that sustains plant and animal life, and the need for civilized folk to live in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it." Why not add "As such, they typically refuse to wear metal armor or use shields primarily made of metal." as the next line? It would still be part of the druid persona, it would still make a character very unusual if they chose to wear metal armor or otherwise found themselves encased in it, and it would still leave it up to the table to determine the consequences of that druid wearing metal armor. Zero mechanical change, but it keeps the rules with the rules and the flavor with the flavor.
The example was only about rules vs rulings, not about player agency, but I'm more than happy to reframe it:
It's session zero, nobody's playing yet. The table's chatting, everyone's getting excited to learn a little about each other's character choices. Beefy Fighter's player says "Whoa what, you're not allowed to wear metal armor?" Druid's player says, "Yeah, I mean I can still use medium armor if it's bone or some other natural material, but you know -- druids and nature." Fighter: "What if like you're about to be attacked by something nasty, and I throw you a metal shield and shout to put it on, it's your only chance?" Druid: "No way, my dude'd just risk dying. You'd have to like... I dunno, grapple me and force it onto my arm..."
Both players look at the DM, and the Druid's player asks, "Actually, what *would* happen if someone put a metal shield on my character's arm?"
The scenario hasn't actually happened yet so no one has to leave in a huff. The druid's player even came up with the idea himself, so clearly this is a hypothetical and no one is concerned about player agency during this particular discussion. It's all about clarifying RAW. The rule text only says that the druid is proficient in light armor, medium armor, and shields and "will not" wear metal, so if a shield were
forcibly jammedheroically fastened onto his arm the only mechanical result would be +2 AC. Anything beyond that is flavor and house rules.Whatever that made-up party decides beyond that is up to them, but it's not A Rule and doesn't belong on the same line as actual rule text such as armor proficiencies. It belongs in the thousands of words of prose that describes the flavor of a druid.
What I find strange is the obsession with even having this discussion. Because we wouldn't be having it with literally any other class.
If a Dexterity fighter, an archer, were to stick to only light armor because of their Dexterity bonus, we wouldn't question it. Their proficiency with medium armor, heavy armor, and shields might never come up, never be used, and we wouldn't think anything of it. We wouldn't think lesser of them.
The druid player is already choosing abide by that restriction. Asking what would happen if somebody forcibly jammed a metal shield onto their arm is inane. Nor is it heroic. It's never heroic to make someone do something they would otherwise choose not to. If you don't trust someone to do their job, to pull their own weight, and do it there way, then why are you even there in the first place? Why play if you're going to force other people to play your way?
Cool. So there's no game mechanical disallowing Druids to wear metal armor. This means if you jump into a group with a Druid character, there's no need to talk to the DM and ask for a special ruling that allows you to wear metal armor. Correct?
Yep! As long as it's not also heavy armor, because that's a clearly defined rule.
It's also still unusual so I wouldn't be surprised if the DM asked about it, but if they did I would expect it to be a thematic question along the lines of "why did your character become an adventurer?" and not a technical question like "why are you breaking the rules?"
I'm not forcing anybody to play any kind of way in my scenario. These are imaginary friends discussing unclear rules before the game even starts. Even if the druid's player decided "well I guess my character would immediately die from shock if that ever happened" nobody would flip the table because it hasn't actually happened. The other players and DM all care for the druid's player and, noting that decision, wouldn't then be a bunch of jerks and try to make it happen in-game. At least, my fictional players aren't jerks, I won't speak for everyone's imagination.
This discussion only ever happens because there is non-rule text "forcibly jammed" into a line of rule text, otherwise nobody would choose to discuss it. That's the whole point.
If the line about metal armor were just up in the paragraphs instead of the proficiencies then the rules would be clear, the flavor would also be clear, and there would still be plenty of druids that steadfastly refuse to wear metal armor purely because they are druids. They wouldn't need a mechanical detriment, they would follow it because they really enjoy that bit of flavor text and it is inherently part of being a druid to them. But because it's on an out-of-character line that is defining what they can and cannot wear, it leads to inconsistencies and arguments.
There's also some text that says "Druids hate that which is unnatural, including undead" so why aren't there a bajillion threads arguing over spore druids getting Animate Dead? Because that line is in the paragraphs therefore doesn't apply to 100% of druids everywhere, it's just defining the general/typical/common druid. The typical druid abhors undead, but a spore druid might love the one they just brought up to fight alongside them. The typical druid abhors elemental evil, but a naughty wildfire druid might be convinced that you know what, fire really IS the best element and should keep consuming everything forever. The typical druid will never wear metal armor or don a metal shield, but (as others have mentioned here) a dwarven druid living in a mountain and coming from a blacksmith family? Of course they would choose to wear metal armor, it's much more natural than leather or wood armor to them.
Flavor text can still be an integral part of choosing a class or building a character. But it's confusing to call it a rule when the very same line that gives them options to not abide by that choice.
Edit: "The preamble that describes the flavor is in the opening descriptions. NOT wearing metal armor is literally listed in the Proficiencies section under Class Features." Yes I know, I've quoted it at least twice in this thread... That is exactly the problem I'm talking about, it belongs in the opening description, not under Proficiencies where it neither describes a proficiency (metal armor proficiency is not a thing) nor affects proficiencies (ignoring it has no mechanical effect). If it were in the right place people wouldn't ask this question, yet druids would mostly still not wear metal armor. Sounds like RAI if the goal is not wearing metal armor.
Bad call. The preamble that describes the flavor is in the opening descriptions. NOT wearing metal armor is literally listed in the Proficiencies section under Class Features.
Proficiencies
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
Tools: Herbalism kit
Saving Throws: Intelligence, Wisdom
Skills: Choose two from Arcana, Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Religion, and Survival
When you read these discussions about it it's obvious that your take is not even the norm, let alone a universally understood interpretation. Irrespective of whether players like the rule, or the way it's written, it's the common understanding that it is a restriction. But hey, if you won't even discuss it first and that's how you roll, you do you.
The simplest interpretation of that line is that it is rules text. Just poorly written.
I mean you say that, but this thread also exists. As do many like it. Clearly I would discuss it, because I'm discussing it now.
The title of this thread is "read this before you ask (this common question because it's unclear)" and the OP says "yes you can wear metal" as if it were hard fact. I'm not saying it's hard fact, but I'm saying it's clearly far from universally understood that druids cannot wear metal armor. Otherwise why aren't there threads like "read this before you ask whether warlocks can wear heavy armor: they can"? Because it's obvious when the rules are kept in the rules and the personal choices are kept in the flavor paragraphs.
Even taking that example - a warlock absolutely could still physically wear heavy armor despite not being proficient with it. They don't, pretty much ever, because there's a mechanical penalty. So if they wanted druids not to ever wear metal armor all they needed to do was say "Armor: light armor, medium armor (druids are not proficient with metal armor)" and it wouldn't even be a question. Even in that case a druid could still choose to wear metal armor if they had a character concept that required metal armor, but they'd have to accept the penalties of not being proficient with it.
FWIW if I made a druid, by default I would not intend to wear metal armor. I'm not saying it's a bad rule, or even a bad "aspect of druids that is not a rule," I'm just saying it's not a rule and therefore should not be on the Proficiencies line. It neither describes nor affects anything the druid is proficient with.
The problem with saying that a druid isn’t proficient with metal armor is that armor is not classified by what it’s made out of. Magic Armor isn’t even required to be made out of particular materials, considering the strange material minor property,
Agree 100%, which is also why the existing text about not wearing metal armor doesn't belong on the Proficiencies list at all. If you can figure out what metal armor means when casting Heat Metal, then you can figure out what it means with regard to proficiency.
Giving it non-proficiency penalties was just a fallback suggestion for those who either like the line where it is or wanted a mechanical penalty, I'm not going to defend that as if it's the right solution. The right solution would have been to put it in the paragraph text.
You know, you really shouldn't divorce paragraphs from anything which provides additional context. It looks like you're trying to unfavorably tilt an argument in your favor.
It doesn't matter that the scenario is only hypothetical. What matters is that, in your scenario, the question of what would happen is even being raised. It matters that someone might disregard the consent of one of their fellow players. And it matters that you try to turn this into something heroic.
I cannot use the words I want to use to describe your thought process without violating the TOS.
It doesn't matter where the "flavor text" is situated or that there are other druids in a game who wouldn't wear metal armor. We don't care about NPC druids because they're a non-issue. NPC druids don't even wear armor (I've brought this up before), and there's no descriptive text saying they choose not to wear metal armor. We only care about PC druids and the rules governing them. And their rule is clear.
I changed the color to make it easier for you to see.
Now, we don't need to wade into the finer points of druids and their relationship with undeath. Not only because I find it a distraction, but because that nuance is already parsed and well-reasoned in the Circle of Spores description. That said, I'm curious why you think worked metal armor, ore refined in fire to remove impurities, is more natural for, say, a dwarf druid than something from a mountain-dwelling creatures (such as the plates of a bulette, which has also been raised before) and alchemically-treated stone (which can be found in Storm King's Thunder). Both of which, mind you, have existed in the game since druids were opened up to more races than just humans and half-elves. So circa 2000 and D&D 3rd edition. And we haven't even touched on other special materials, like dragonhide and glassteel, or the products of the wood shape and ironwood spells.
I honestly don't know what's so dang confusing about people to choose to play a druid also choosing not to wear metal armor. It's a druid thing. And, again, we wouldn't question anyone else's armor choices. Yeah, they still could choose to wear metal armor anyway. But then they're breaking the taboo. And that taboo exists until the DM says it doesn't. So personal choice will change it, so why is the druid breaking the taboo? It's not for mechanical reasons, is it? The mechanics are merely an abstraction to facilitate storytelling and conflict resolution. No, this is about the character, not the player. If the answer is "I want my druid character to have a higher AC" then you aren't approaching the question from the correct angle. This shouldn't be a mechanical question. This should be a story question.
If you want better armor than studded leather or hide, there's a story for that. And isn't that why we play? We aren't just rolling shiny math rocks, are we?