They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
Yeah fair enough.
And still a house rule. You are still a Druid.
OH yeah for sure its a house rule...for what I consider a silly rule to begin with.
Same for smiting with your fist...not RAW but come on...thats just lame.
I can respect that. I'm never one to argue with a DM if they want to house rule something, unless it's something egregious. But if they insist something is RAW when it's clearly not, I don't know why, it just bugs me. It shouldn't, but I can't help it.
Not a single person here is saying that Druids wearing metal armor is RAW/RAI. They (myself included) are just questioning why the restriction is in place to begin with.
RAW, you would not play a Druid / Forge Cleric Mutliclass because some of the best FC features rely on wearing heavy armor (all metal). RAW/RAI it doesn't make sense why metal weapons/jewelry are allowed but metal armor is not. It just seems like it's some attempt at keeping a relic alive that does not fit within 5E.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
Not a single person here is saying that Druids wearing metal armor is RAW/RAI. They (myself included) are just questioning why the restriction is in place to begin with.
RAW, you would not play a Druid / Forge Cleric Mutliclass because some of the best FC features rely on wearing heavy armor (all metal). RAW/RAI it doesn't make sense why metal weapons/jewelry are allowed but metal armor is not. It just seems like it's some attempt at keeping a relic alive that does not fit within 5E.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
I agree on the vibe if the armor is smooth, shiny plate or a full set of chain mail. I always envisioned Druid in metal armor as a hand-hammered breastplate (maybe what was once a cauldron?) or scale mail made of mismatched metal pieces sewn to the leather/cloth underneath.
I feel like any armor that you come across in gameplay would be dented/a little worn, so it wouldn't fit the industrial vibe.
That's fair, flavor wise. But then players of course are going to want half plate and such. And like I said, to me it's an interesting and unique wrinkle. I like to navigate things like this when I'm optimizing. It fosters creativity. It also potentially opens up interesting plots or hooks in game if you're Druid. For example, you can take smith's tools and leather working tools. Then whenever the party kills something large with really tough hide, talk to your DM about harvesting the hide to make medium armor. The DM can decide stats and if it has any special properties and such. That's just one possible scenario.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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... :-)
Yes, if you feel strongly about something you can always talk to your DM about it. Keeping those lines of communication open are important for a healthy table dynamic. You don't need to be facetious by moving in the other, more restrictive direction with a bad example.
Because what's the alternative, now? The druid starts with padded and can only wear metal that doesn't include leather? Well, I guess scale mail and a breastplate are out. Doesn't leave a lot of options, and it certainly is more restrictive of magical armors. No dragon scale mail, should you come across any.
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.
See, that is exactly my point about player agency. It is forcing every Druid to make the same exact choice, so it's not a choice at all. I have never played a single character that was written out in a book that forced all of my choices. I play characters where I get to choose what they do/think/believe.
I disagree entirely. If player agency within a class requires that you are able to change the class, then why even describe classes at all?
Agency comes from making choices within the framework, not just yelling that you don't like the framework.
See, that is exactly my point about player agency. It is forcing every Druid to make the same exact choice, so it's not a choice at all. I have never played a single character that was written out in a book that forced all of my choices. I play characters where I get to choose what they do/think/believe.
I disagree entirely. If player agency within a class requires that you are able to change the class, then why even describe classes at all?
I think it boils down to "does this effect the mechanics of the character?"
If that answer is no and it's flavor only that is being affected then I'm much less likely to care at all and all likely agree to most concepts.
If you want to be a cyborg then I might have an issue but what your armor is made of (unless it's magic or a special item) is so far down the list of what is important it's just not a big deal 99.999% of the time
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?
See, that is exactly my point about player agency. It is forcing every Druid to make the same exact choice, so it's not a choice at all. I have never played a single character that was written out in a book that forced all of my choices. I play characters where I get to choose what they do/think/believe.
We've been over this. No one is forcing the player to play a druid. If they're electing to play a druid, then they're already exercising agency. No agency is being taken away.
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?
See, that is exactly my point about player agency. It is forcing every Druid to make the same exact choice, so it's not a choice at all. I have never played a single character that was written out in a book that forced all of my choices. I play characters where I get to choose what they do/think/believe.
How does it take away player agency anymore than saying they can't wear metal armor?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will say that they should have written this is "light armor, non-metallic medium armor" instead of how they actually worded it.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
Yeah fair enough.
And still a house rule. You are still a Druid.
OH yeah for sure its a house rule...for what I consider a silly rule to begin with.
Same for smiting with your fist...not RAW but come on...thats just lame.
I can respect that. I'm never one to argue with a DM if they want to house rule something, unless it's something egregious. But if they insist something is RAW when it's clearly not, I don't know why, it just bugs me. It shouldn't, but I can't help it.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
That's fair, flavor wise. But then players of course are going to want half plate and such. And like I said, to me it's an interesting and unique wrinkle. I like to navigate things like this when I'm optimizing. It fosters creativity. It also potentially opens up interesting plots or hooks in game if you're Druid. For example, you can take smith's tools and leather working tools. Then whenever the party kills something large with really tough hide, talk to your DM about harvesting the hide to make medium armor. The DM can decide stats and if it has any special properties and such. That's just one possible scenario.
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 you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others.
So there is the answer... :-)
Yes, if you feel strongly about something you can always talk to your DM about it. Keeping those lines of communication open are important for a healthy table dynamic. You don't need to be facetious by moving in the other, more restrictive direction with a bad example.
Because what's the alternative, now? The druid starts with padded and can only wear metal that doesn't include leather? Well, I guess scale mail and a breastplate are out. Doesn't leave a lot of options, and it certainly is more restrictive of magical armors. No dragon scale mail, should you come across any.
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.
I disagree entirely. If player agency within a class requires that you are able to change the class, then why even describe classes at all?
Agency comes from making choices within the framework, not just yelling that you don't like the framework.
I think it boils down to "does this effect the mechanics of the character?"
If that answer is no and it's flavor only that is being affected then I'm much less likely to care at all and all likely agree to most concepts.
If you want to be a cyborg then I might have an issue but what your armor is made of (unless it's magic or a special item) is so far down the list of what is important it's just not a big deal 99.999% of the time
We've been over this. No one is forcing the player to play a druid. If they're electing to play a druid, then they're already exercising agency. No agency is being taken away.
How does it take away player agency anymore than saying they can't wear metal armor?