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?
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> 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?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> 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?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
It often does yes, but most people ignore that part because in earlier edition it was described that druids did not bother with so little metal. Then in a later edition 1 circle of druids did not bother with metal at all, so all metal was fine, but in this edition people think 1 of those apply and the other does not.
My opinion on this matter is either you play the characters with the flavor restrictions in place for all classes, so paladins must have God's, must be lawful. Wizard can have no iron on them at all because it drains magic (in ad&d), barbarians can't read and so forth. Or people accept that flavor change for each setting, I would never force a conquest paladin to be lawful good. And I could see no problem in a druid who choose to rebel against his circle or if their circle accepter metal, maybe because they are dwarves or are followers of melil.
To hard rule "all druids in all the planes and settings have this view on this specific topic" are a very weird take for me, it should be a world building question first and foremost.
We wouldn't question a Fighter making that CHOICE. Because nothing would prevent a Fighter from putting on the next set of chain mail or plate mail that he came across. He could even change it up day by day. If you had a level 20 fighter wearing leather armor, I bet most people would point out that it is sub-optimal and at level 20 you should have plenty of gold to buy better armor.
What's at issue is that the game mechanics give you proficiency in armor, and then there's a line saying "Oh, but you can't actually ever use it."
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
An important distinction here. What's at issue here is a game mechanic that gives you proficiency in medium armor, but restricts you only using non-metalic medium armor. That's very different from not being allowed to wear medium armor at all.
So what is the real problem here? If instead of saying "will not" they said, "if you wear metal armor you will explode and then will destroy the multiverse by disrupting the time space continuum" would that make it better?
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> 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?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
We wouldn't question a Fighter making that CHOICE. Because nothing would prevent a Fighter from putting on the next set of chain mail or plate mail that he came across. He could even change it up day by day. If you had a level 20 fighter wearing leather armor, I bet most people would point out that it is sub-optimal and at level 20 you should have plenty of gold to buy better armor.
What's at issue is that the game mechanics give you proficiency in armor, and then there's a line saying "Oh, but you can't actually ever use it."
I'm only going to say this once: stop misrepresenting the truth.
We both know druids can still wear medium armor. Setting aside the availability of hide, they can always get magical and mundane armors which aren't made of metal. It doesn't matter if it's scale mail made from dragon or serpent scales, a breastplate made from stone, or half plate made from petrified mushrooms. That option has always been there. This isn't some big secret, they've all been mentioned numerous times, and your refusal to acknowledge this truth is blatantly dishonest.
In order for our choices to matter, there need to be consequences. Not every fighter is going to want to wear plate. A lot just don't have the Strength to move effectively in it, they need Strength 15, and that's okay. That fighter can start with leather and will probably upgrade to studded leather before too long. But they might not; it depends on the module and what the DM might add or change. I wouldn't reasonably expect more than glamoured studded leather, but maybe that's just me. Rules as written, playing a druid means facing the consequence of not wearing metal armor. And, like with nonmetal medium armor, that's not some big surprise. The player knew it before they even started rolling dice. If they complain, the problem isn't with the class or how it's written.
It's with them.
Here's another example of choice and consequence. Rules as written, a dark elf (drow) or tiefling needs material components to cast some of their racial spells; specifically faerie fire (exclusive to the drow) and darkness. Their respective features do not associate the aforementioned spells with a specific class' list, so they can't use a class' spellcasting focus. For example, a wand won't work with them. They need a component pouch or something else, like a ruby of the war mage, to serve as a universal spellcasting focus. This is a direct consequence of playing one of these races, and it's why sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all have the option of starting with a component pouch.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were afraid of consequences.
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
Yeah, except every other restriction has a, you know, restriction. IF you wear armor with which you are not proficient, you cannot cast spells.
Druids are just having a roleplaying choice made for them. Where if they break that roleplaying choice, nothing happens.
Some restrictions are soft, meaning you can do them but with a penalty. Others are hard restrictions, things you just simply cannot do.
Druids not being able to wear metal is just another hard restriction flavored as a role playing choice. If you don't like the flavor, change the flavor. Say... "The reason my Druid does not wear metal is because it will destroy the multiverse if he does." Or maybe less silly, "The properties of metal interfere with nature magic." Whatever suits you. At the end of the day it's just a game mechanic. A restriction. How you fit that mechanic into your character concept is up to you. If you prefer to flavor the mechanic in a manner that does not involve your character's choice, cool.
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.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material? I get what you're doing there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least bandied about during brainstorming sessions or earlier versions of the rules, but I imagine that adding another layer of "complexity" to what proficiencies are came into play with that.
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.
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.
I mean, they're pretty adamant that this is aversion to wearing metal armor and shields—despite the fact that they can wield a metal sickle—is an inherent, core part of the class definition, even if there isn't any actual underlying mechanical restriction in play. Let's be real—there are gonna be tons of players who don't ever read any of that, or at the very least just skim it without paying it much mind. They likely thought, what would we need to include in the parts clearly designated as "rules you need to know to play this class" and decided that was something to include, and they put it in the most logical place they could given the format of the class description.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material?
There is no rule saying you can't have proficiency in a type of material, and it's perfectly mechanically consistent, so... there is such a thing the moment someone introduces one.
This topic really is a zombie. I'm curious why it's so problematic. The rules say that druids simply don't choose to wear metal armor. If you don't want to follow that, you work it out with your DM, like really any other rule that you don't want to follow. Or work out armor made out of other materials that don't interfere. It's really pretty simple, no? I mean, it's highly unlikely that Wizards is going to change that even in the new update in a couple of years... is this really that much of a hill to die on? LOL
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
Nothing is confusing to me about druids not wearing metal armor, as I said that's how I'd play one by default. However, I can also imagine a universe in which someone might want to wear metal and play a druid, and I don't feel that's against RAW (or RAI based on the designers' quotes from this thread), nor would I even want to restrict them from playing that way if it were against RAW.
But if a fictional player asking about their own fictional character violates their own consent in such an inhumane way that you can't even talk about it in public, then I don't have a response to that. So you win, no druids can ever don metal for any reason. I'm not sure how that's in any way better for consent or player agency, but fortunately we don't have to play with each other.
> 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?
I thought so, but you seem to be arguing against anyone coming up with a story for their own character, so yes you are just rolling shiny math rocks. But at my table it's equally acceptable whether a druid's medium armor breastplate is made of bone, or chitin, or whether it's the metal breastplate of a fallen comrade. As long as they're proficient in it, nothing changes mechanically so it should be all about story.
People keep saying studded leather but that has metal in it right?
If you're having this much difficulty comprehending me, then you need to ask for clarification or else just walk away.
I'm not saying people can't work with the DM to come up with a story. Just the opposite. I explicitly state the taboo against metal armor exists, and breaking that taboo is in of itself a story. By the same token, so is finding armor made of special materials. There's more than one way to get to the mall, and any road there should be between the player and the DM. Here's the full text of the Sage Advice answer, in case you've yet to see it.
And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any of you are interested in the story. Every person here who wants to get rid of the restriction has only ever pointed to how they think it's a relic that should be allowed to die. In other words, they just don't like it.
What I find utterly inane is that some people are hung up on this one choice or restriction when they don't bat an eye at any others. We don't question a fighter wearing leather instead of chain mail. We don't question why some spells are only found on certain class' spell lists. The whole game is about working within restrictions. Six months ago, back on page 7, I brought up how druid players have "informed consent" when it comes to the prohibition on metal armor. And that anyone who feels strongly enough to petition the DM to allow metal armor can also petition the DM for nonmetallic armors that don't break the class' taboo.
The idea that druids choosing not to wear metal armor is a bridge too far just does not make sense.
It often does yes, but most people ignore that part because in earlier edition it was described that druids did not bother with so little metal. Then in a later edition 1 circle of druids did not bother with metal at all, so all metal was fine, but in this edition people think 1 of those apply and the other does not.
My opinion on this matter is either you play the characters with the flavor restrictions in place for all classes, so paladins must have God's, must be lawful. Wizard can have no iron on them at all because it drains magic (in ad&d), barbarians can't read and so forth. Or people accept that flavor change for each setting, I would never force a conquest paladin to be lawful good. And I could see no problem in a druid who choose to rebel against his circle or if their circle accepter metal, maybe because they are dwarves or are followers of melil.
To hard rule "all druids in all the planes and settings have this view on this specific topic" are a very weird take for me, it should be a world building question first and foremost.
How about Wizards? Do they have a choice to wear metal armor?
An important distinction here. What's at issue here is a game mechanic that gives you proficiency in medium armor, but restricts you only using non-metalic medium armor. That's very different from not being allowed to wear medium armor at all.
So what is the real problem here? If instead of saying "will not" they said, "if you wear metal armor you will explode and then will destroy the multiverse by disrupting the time space continuum" would that make it better?
Wizards do have the option of taking feats or multiclassing to gain access to metal armor.
But a straight Wizard does not, unless they expend a 2 big resources. Everything is about choices, give and take. A consequence of multi-classing into Druid is that you won't have access to metal armor unless the DM makes a house rule. Every build has a plethora of restrictions.
I'm only going to say this once: stop misrepresenting the truth.
We both know druids can still wear medium armor. Setting aside the availability of hide, they can always get magical and mundane armors which aren't made of metal. It doesn't matter if it's scale mail made from dragon or serpent scales, a breastplate made from stone, or half plate made from petrified mushrooms. That option has always been there. This isn't some big secret, they've all been mentioned numerous times, and your refusal to acknowledge this truth is blatantly dishonest.
In order for our choices to matter, there need to be consequences. Not every fighter is going to want to wear plate. A lot just don't have the Strength to move effectively in it, they need Strength 15, and that's okay. That fighter can start with leather and will probably upgrade to studded leather before too long. But they might not; it depends on the module and what the DM might add or change. I wouldn't reasonably expect more than glamoured studded leather, but maybe that's just me. Rules as written, playing a druid means facing the consequence of not wearing metal armor. And, like with nonmetal medium armor, that's not some big surprise. The player knew it before they even started rolling dice. If they complain, the problem isn't with the class or how it's written.
It's with them.
Here's another example of choice and consequence. Rules as written, a dark elf (drow) or tiefling needs material components to cast some of their racial spells; specifically faerie fire (exclusive to the drow) and darkness. Their respective features do not associate the aforementioned spells with a specific class' list, so they can't use a class' spellcasting focus. For example, a wand won't work with them. They need a component pouch or something else, like a ruby of the war mage, to serve as a universal spellcasting focus. This is a direct consequence of playing one of these races, and it's why sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all have the option of starting with a component pouch.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were afraid of consequences.
Some restrictions are soft, meaning you can do them but with a penalty. Others are hard restrictions, things you just simply cannot do.
Druids not being able to wear metal is just another hard restriction flavored as a role playing choice. If you don't like the flavor, change the flavor. Say... "The reason my Druid does not wear metal is because it will destroy the multiverse if he does." Or maybe less silly, "The properties of metal interfere with nature magic." Whatever suits you. At the end of the day it's just a game mechanic. A restriction. How you fit that mechanic into your character concept is up to you. If you prefer to flavor the mechanic in a manner that does not involve your character's choice, cool.
Is there such thing as proficiency in a type of material? I get what you're doing there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least bandied about during brainstorming sessions or earlier versions of the rules, but I imagine that adding another layer of "complexity" to what proficiencies are came into play with that.
I mean, they're pretty adamant that this is aversion to wearing metal armor and shields—despite the fact that they can wield a metal sickle—is an inherent, core part of the class definition, even if there isn't any actual underlying mechanical restriction in play. Let's be real—there are gonna be tons of players who don't ever read any of that, or at the very least just skim it without paying it much mind. They likely thought, what would we need to include in the parts clearly designated as "rules you need to know to play this class" and decided that was something to include, and they put it in the most logical place they could given the format of the class description.
There is no rule saying you can't have proficiency in a type of material, and it's perfectly mechanically consistent, so... there is such a thing the moment someone introduces one.
This topic really is a zombie. I'm curious why it's so problematic. The rules say that druids simply don't choose to wear metal armor. If you don't want to follow that, you work it out with your DM, like really any other rule that you don't want to follow. Or work out armor made out of other materials that don't interfere. It's really pretty simple, no? I mean, it's highly unlikely that Wizards is going to change that even in the new update in a couple of years... is this really that much of a hill to die on? LOL