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?
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?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
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?