So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
There's also no enforcement mechanism in the PH for a paladin's Sacred Oath.
That doesn't mean they get to ignore it.
There kinda is in the existence of the Oathbreaker subclass of Paladin: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power."
But, the oath a Paladin takes is more RP and flavor than anything. There is nothing mechanical about the actual tenets of the oath. I have yet to hear of any DM that is dictating their Paladin player's actions based on their oath.
That subclass is referenced in the Player's Handbook, but it doesn't appear. It's also a sidebar that outlines things which might happen, but nothing is hard-coded. If there's a penalty, and subsequent atonement, for breaking one's oath, it's left up to the DM to determine.
In other words, it's a role-playing suggestion; not an actual rule.
I'll agree the DM shouldn't dictate actions and take control of the character. That should remain firmly under the player's control. I also think this was a red herring; whether you intended it to be or not. A paladin chooses their Sacred Oath, and I would hope we can all agree that following it should be more than a mere suggestion. That is, functionally, no different from the explicit expectation of a druid choosing not to wear armor and shields made from metal. We do not get to have this both ways. Either the choice and class identity matters, or it doesn't.
If future printings set forth a new expectation, then fine. Throwing it out simply because you feel like it...isn't.
If future printings set forth a new expectation, then fine. Throwing it out simply because you feel like it...isn't.
Throwing it out because you feel like it actually is perfectly fine. You admitted yourself, this is a choice and a choice necessitates having more than one selectable option. If my players don't want hide and want to wear metal, they are still druids. Just druids who buck tradition.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
There's also no enforcement mechanism in the PH for a paladin's Sacred Oath.
That doesn't mean they get to ignore it.
Uh, yes it does. I do it all the time. Your character is YOUR character. You decide how they're going to behave. Simple as.
If your DM wants to run you through story narrative consequences for your choices then that's A OK. But there is no RAW consequences for a druid wearing metal armor, and no rule saying they "can't" wear it.
So if one does, then they do. And there is no RAW consequence for it.
Don't like it? Homebrew a consequence for it! D&D lives and dies by DMs being willing to bend or break rules to twll the stories they want. You're not stuck in a cage getting electrocuted every time you do something your way instead of what the book says.
Seriously. Don't like the fact it is missing a consequence? Homebrew one.
Just please be up front with your players with all your homebrew changes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
There's also no enforcement mechanism in the PH for a paladin's Sacred Oath.
That doesn't mean they get to ignore it.
Uh, yes it does. I do it all the time. Your character is YOUR character. You decide how they're going to behave. Simple as.
If your DM wants to run you through story narrative consequences for your choices then that's A OK. But there is no RAW consequences for a druid wearing metal armor, and no rule saying they "can't" wear it.
So if one does, then they do. And there is no RAW consequence for it.
Don't like it? Homebrew a consequence for it! D&D lives and dies by DMs being willing to bend or break rules to twll the stories they want. You're not stuck in a cage getting electrocuted every time you do something your way instead of what the book says.
Seriously. Don't like the fact it is missing a consequence? Homebrew one.
Just please be up front with your players with all your homebrew changes.
You're functionally saying that choices don't matter because there's no guaranteed consequence.
Worse, it's antagonistic. The player does whatever they want, and if it slips past the DM, then oh well.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
There's also no enforcement mechanism in the PH for a paladin's Sacred Oath.
That doesn't mean they get to ignore it.
Uh, yes it does. I do it all the time. Your character is YOUR character. You decide how they're going to behave. Simple as.
If your DM wants to run you through story narrative consequences for your choices then that's A OK. But there is no RAW consequences for a druid wearing metal armor, and no rule saying they "can't" wear it.
So if one does, then they do. And there is no RAW consequence for it.
Don't like it? Homebrew a consequence for it! D&D lives and dies by DMs being willing to bend or break rules to twll the stories they want. You're not stuck in a cage getting electrocuted every time you do something your way instead of what the book says.
Seriously. Don't like the fact it is missing a consequence? Homebrew one.
Just please be up front with your players with all your homebrew changes.
You're functionally saying that choices don't matter because there's no guaranteed consequence.
Worse, it's antagonistic. The player does whatever they want, and if it slips past the DM, then oh well.
There are no "mechanical" consequences per the RAW. The DM is welcome to and even expected to have some story driven consequences for player actions. That's what they do at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There are no "mechanical" consequences per the RAW. The DM is welcome to and even expected to have some story driven consequences for player actions. That's what they do at the table.
There are no for "mechanical" consequemces per the RAW because there is no need for them. Druids will not wear armor made of metal so there is no need for the rules to say what will happen if to do (because they wont)
A player wanting to play a "druid" who will wear armor is the one wanting to go into homebrew, If they agree something with the DM as so how it will work great if don't pretend it is RAW.
There are no "mechanical" consequences per the RAW. The DM is welcome to and even expected to have some story driven consequences for player actions. That's what they do at the table.
There are no for "mechanical" consequemces per the RAW because there is no need for them. Druids will not wear armor made of metal so there is no need for the rules to say what will happen if to do (because they wont)
A player wanting to play a "druid" who will wear armor is the one wanting to go into homebrew, If they agree something with the DM as so how it will work great if don't pretend it is RAW.
It is not homebrew if a player has a druid PC wearing metal. A DM can permit it and the decision is supported by the rules of the game without veering into homebrew territory.
There are no "mechanical" consequences per the RAW. The DM is welcome to and even expected to have some story driven consequences for player actions. That's what they do at the table.
There are no for "mechanical" consequemces per the RAW because there is no need for them. Druids will not wear armor made of metal so there is no need for the rules to say what will happen if to do (because they wont)
A player wanting to play a "druid" who will wear armor is the one wanting to go into homebrew, If they agree something with the DM as so how it will work great if don't pretend it is RAW.
It is not homebrew if a player has a druid PC wearing metal. A DM can permit it and the decision is supported by the rules of the game without veering into homebrew territory.
I've run it. Adventurer's League modules tend to move at a blistering pace, so there isn't much room for compromise or negotiating. If someone wanted to try and delay the game, they can simply be booted. Each adventure has all the information necessary to adjust encounters by party size, so the loss of one stubborn goat isn't felt that strongly. You run with the assumptions presented, because the point is the adventure itself, and you can't have anything another DM wouldn't allow. This includes the restriction on druids and metal armor; regardless of your opinion on it being fluff or mechanical.
In reality, it's both. There are mechanical differences between metallic and nonmetallic armors. That said, there are rules for running hardcover adventures in DDAL. They have a bit more freedom because the usual time constraints of a convention don't need to be followed. Still, they bound by the same expectation that you can take a character back and forth. The same core assumptions must hold true.
A druid chooses not to wear metal armor; much in the same way a vegan abstains from consuming meat and animal byproducts. Vegans have the same teeth and enzymes as the rest of us; they aren't some other species. For the two, neither one lacks the capacity. But it is part of their identity. It's important to them; even if you don't personally understand why. And this is presented to the player in the core rulebooks. They're making an informed decision when they decide to play anything, so saying "You don't get to decide how I play my character" is a fallacy. It always has been. You don't get to eat boiled chicken and still be considered vegan. The druid chooses not to wear metal armor because the player read that parenthetical and agreed with that choice.
The next edition of the PH may change that, and we'll cross that bridge if or when we get to it. But for now, under the rules of the 2014 PH, this is the reality. You're free to do whatever in your home games. That still doesn't change core assumptions.
"Druids will not wear armor" does not mean everything not wearing armor is a druid. A horse will not eat meat dies that mean that a cow is a horse because they don't eat meat?. Wizards Sorcerers and Rogues are not proficient in metal armor as part of there class training but a Mountain dwarf who grew up in a clan where everyone is taught how to wear medium armor effectively may be seen wearing half plate on the battlefield even if they subsequantly studied the arcane arts and became a wizard.
If the PC want to play a barbarian that casts spells while raging ashould they be allowed to becasue while the rules say barbarians can't they want their character to be different?. What if the player wants their character to cast 9th level spells from the start of the game. The PHB says they can not do so and very few people complain.
I know your arguement is the "will not" does not mean "can not" but for practical purposes they are the same. If you will not do something you do not do and and if you can not do something you do not do it.
The player who wants to play a character wearing metal armor has plenty of choice, they can choose and class other than druid.
I've run it. Adventurer's League modules tend to move at a blistering pace, so there isn't much room for compromise or negotiating. If someone wanted to try and delay the game, they can simply be booted. Each adventure has all the information necessary to adjust encounters by party size, so the loss of one stubborn goat isn't felt that strongly. You run with the assumptions presented, because the point is the adventure itself, and you can't have anything another DM wouldn't allow. This includes the restriction on druids and metal armor; regardless of your opinion on it being fluff or mechanical.
In reality, it's both. There are mechanical differences between metallic and nonmetallic armors. That said, there are rules for running hardcover adventures in DDAL. They have a bit more freedom because the usual time constraints of a convention don't need to be followed. Still, they bound by the same expectation that you can take a character back and forth. The same core assumptions must hold true.
A druid chooses not to wear metal armor; much in the same way a vegan abstains from consuming meat and animal byproducts. Vegans have the same teeth and enzymes as the rest of us; they aren't some other species. For the two, neither one lacks the capacity. But it is part of their identity. It's important to them; even if you don't personally understand why. And this is presented to the player in the core rulebooks. They're making an informed decision when they decide to play anything, so saying "You don't get to decide how I play my character" is a fallacy. It always has been. You don't get to eat boiled chicken and still be considered vegan. The druid chooses not to wear metal armor because the player read that parenthetical and agreed with that choice.
The next edition of the PH may change that, and we'll cross that bridge if or when we get to it. But for now, under the rules of the 2014 PH, this is the reality. You're free to do whatever in your home games. That still doesn't change core assumptions.
This is a really, really bad analogy. The only thing that identifies you as a vegan is that you don't use/consume animal based products. That's it. Druid is a whole host of features and abilities, not "a Druid is someone who doesn't wear metal armor."
Does that mean that all Wizards, Sorcerers, and Rogues are also Druids? They don't wear metal armor, so they must be Druids! That is the whole defining feature of a Druid! See? Really bad analogy.
The problem is that Druid PC doesn't get a choice. You cannot say that you choose this when if you don't choose this, then you don't get this choice. Rogues don't choose not to wear Plate Mail, they are simply not proficient. In fact, they could choose to wear it, and they would suffer a mechanical penalty. Druid is the only class in game that basically doesn't get a choice by the PHB making the choice for them.
I know you're going to argue that "You choose the class, so you get the abilities of that class!" Except, you don't with Druid. Druids are proficient in Medium Armor....except they will absolutely refuse to wear any type of Medium Armor except Hide because....mumble mumble....NATURE!
So, you are actually not allowed to play a Vegan Druid unless you don't want to ever wear any armor other than padded (being very careful to avoid anything made of wool).... what a great choice! The (seemingly) most vegan friendly, nature loving class in the game will only go parading around in the flesh of animals! Huzzah!
At this juncture, I can only assume your take is deliberately obtuse in some attempt to paint me as either a fool or disingenuous. But in the spirit of maintaining an honest conversation...
A druid is not merely anyone who does not wear metal armor. It is part of their identity, but it is not the defining characteristic. This should be obvious, and your earlier remarks stink of flippancy.
The player reads what's on the page and makes decisions based on what they read. It's fine. They're cool with it. Don't get mad on someone else's behalf who isn't actually mad.
Actually no. The player may not be able to buy anything in the Player's Handbook, but that doesn't mean other materials can't be made available. As has been pointed out multiple times, repeatedly, both mundane and magical armor made from different materials exist. There's no shortage in official printings, and the DM is always allowed to make up something else. The PH sets an expectation by laying down some base assumptions. As the basis for the social contract necessary to play, it is part of the rules. That said, the rules are not limited to only what's in the PH.
There's no mutual exclusivity with druidism and veganism.
Now, with that out of the way, are you prepared for a serious discussion?
I've run it. Adventurer's League modules tend to move at a blistering pace, so there isn't much room for compromise or negotiating. If someone wanted to try and delay the game, they can simply be booted. Each adventure has all the information necessary to adjust encounters by party size, so the loss of one stubborn goat isn't felt that strongly. You run with the assumptions presented, because the point is the adventure itself, and you can't have anything another DM wouldn't allow. This includes the restriction on druids and metal armor; regardless of your opinion on it being fluff or mechanical.
In reality, it's both. There are mechanical differences between metallic and nonmetallic armors. That said, there are rules for running hardcover adventures in DDAL. They have a bit more freedom because the usual time constraints of a convention don't need to be followed. Still, they bound by the same expectation that you can take a character back and forth. The same core assumptions must hold true.
A druid chooses not to wear metal armor; much in the same way a vegan abstains from consuming meat and animal byproducts. Vegans have the same teeth and enzymes as the rest of us; they aren't some other species. For the two, neither one lacks the capacity. But it is part of their identity. It's important to them; even if you don't personally understand why. And this is presented to the player in the core rulebooks. They're making an informed decision when they decide to play anything, so saying "You don't get to decide how I play my character" is a fallacy. It always has been. You don't get to eat boiled chicken and still be considered vegan. The druid chooses not to wear metal armor because the player read that parenthetical and agreed with that choice.
The next edition of the PH may change that, and we'll cross that bridge if or when we get to it. But for now, under the rules of the 2014 PH, this is the reality. You're free to do whatever in your home games. That still doesn't change core assumptions.
I find it interesting that you are assuming a conflict between the player and DM if the player wants to be a metal-wearing druid. Not everyone seeks conflict with their players over this issue or relish the opportunity to kick players from the table. May I ask why you seem to?
That said, if any player were immediately kicked from an Adventure League game for wanting to be a metal-wearing druid, I would be happy to host such a player at my game. I might even make it an Adventure League game just so there is a place where people can play organized play and still have fun if they had an experience with a DM who runs games where raising an issue gets players removed from the game.
Identity is funny in that it can adjust when needed. We, as people can rationalize nearly anything and every person is a compilation of different identities. We carry multiple 'hats' that make up our various identities and swap them to suit our own personal needs. A vegan can rationalize eating meat if they really want to and a druid can be an individual who disagrees with the general philosophy of what worked metal represents. Identity is not universally shared and where it is shared, it is not shared to the same degree among all people - such is the nature of human behavior. We adhere to groups mostly and will make some compromise to our own values to fit within groups... to an extent, and abandon facets of an identity when necessary. Catholic priests used to be unable to be seen without their cassock until there were those who flouted the rule on garb. Now it is a requirement that is far more loosely applied and in some cases, not at all. What you describe, an unmovable, univocal philosophy among all peoples, is simply impossible and demonstrates a general lack of understanding on the topic of identity.
A vegan is still a vegan if they eat boiled chicken. Most vegans were not born vegans and most had, at one point, eaten meat. If a vegan is put in a situation where their survival requires them to eat meat and they do, they are certainly still vegans if after they are out of that situation, they pursue veganism again. Veganism is more than one action or decision point, it is a philosophy and way of life. Druids seems to be similar in this respect.
Now, I don't expect a DM who seeks conflict with their players to really grasp all that but we do have official rulings that druids can wear worked metal if they want to with their DM's approval. I would encourage any DM to think about whether a not-universal idea of a druid is more important to them than their player's enjoyment. Some DMs might hold to tradition, but I hope there are more who are open to their player's needs.
Yes, there would be a conflict. The issue is a DDAL character must be playable at every single table. What you personally allow at home isn't relevant. They can't have loot that isn't from an adventure on their log sheet. There is something of an honor system in play, but a savvy DM will sniff it out and would be well within their rights to deny a space in the game. You're agreeing to play by a set of rules. That's not a suggestion.
A PC which lacks proficiency/training with certain armors can still choose to wear them, but it has little mechanical reason to. What it might gain in armor class will cost it in other areas. A druid has proficiency/training with certain armors, but similarly has no reason to wear all of them. The intent isn't to simply do without, but rather to find acceptable substitutes. They are still proficient with the chain shirt, scale mail, breastplate, and half plate. They just won't be buying and wearing any made from metal in the PH. The writers are trusting the reader is savvy enough to read between the lines, and the PC finding (or crating) such armor is intended to be a massive carrot.
Now, someone mentions shamans earlier. A shaman NPC spellcaster might use the druid spell list, but that doesn't mean they're druids. They lack class features and defined armor and weapon proficiencies. Even the druid lacks any armor and is a 4th-level spellcaster with no Wild Shape (a 2nd-level feature). The class as it appeared in 3E cast spells as a druid, and could wear metal armor, but was limited to light armor. The 4E shaman, a primal class, could only wear cloth and leather armor. Go far enough back, and it was a variant cleric. My point here is there's no real definition of what a shaman is, so even just that becomes homebrew. And that's not something the player should get to do on their own.
Yes, there would be a conflict. The issue is a DDAL character must be playable at every single table. What you personally allow at home isn't relevant. They can't have loot that isn't from an adventure on their log sheet. There is something of an honor system in play, but a savvy DM will sniff it out and would be well within their rights to deny a space in the game. You're agreeing to play by a set of rules. That's not a suggestion.
A PC which lacks proficiency/training with certain armors can still choose to wear them, but it has little mechanical reason to. What it might gain in armor class will cost it in other areas. A druid has proficiency/training with certain armors, but similarly has no reason to wear all of them. The intent isn't to simply do without, but rather to find acceptable substitutes. They are still proficient with the chain shirt, scale mail, breastplate, and half plate. They just won't be buying and wearing any made from metal in the PH. The writers are trusting the reader is savvy enough to read between the lines, and the PC finding (or crating) such armor is intended to be a massive carrot.
Now, someone mentions shamans earlier. A shaman NPC spellcaster might use the druid spell list, but that doesn't mean they're druids. They lack class features and defined armor and weapon proficiencies. Even the druid lacks any armor and is a 4th-level spellcaster with no Wild Shape (a 2nd-level feature). The class as it appeared in 3E cast spells as a druid, and could wear metal armor, but was limited to light armor. The 4E shaman, a primal class, could only wear cloth and leather armor. Go far enough back, and it was a variant cleric. My point here is there's no real definition of what a shaman is, so even just that becomes homebrew. And that's not something the player should get to do on their own.
As has been pointed out, there is going to be variation at any DDAL table. Since you are not in control of all DDAL games (and thank the gods for that mercy), that you don't want druids to wear metal is immaterial. The rules of the game permit it if the DM allows. There is only conflict if the DM is seeking conflict here. Sage Advice is not required for DDAL, but it is used in it per the Adventure League's own Twitter (X) page (emphasis on 'is' their own). That means that a metal-wearing druid can play at a DDAL game. Not much else in this post is worth addressing, so I will simply ignore it.
Yes, there would be a conflict. The issue is a DDAL character must be playable at every single table. What you personally allow at home isn't relevant. They can't have loot that isn't from an adventure on their log sheet. There is something of an honor system in play, but a savvy DM will sniff it out and would be well within their rights to deny a space in the game. You're agreeing to play by a set of rules. That's not a suggestion.
A PC which lacks proficiency/training with certain armors can still choose to wear them, but it has little mechanical reason to. What it might gain in armor class will cost it in other areas. A druid has proficiency/training with certain armors, but similarly has no reason to wear all of them. The intent isn't to simply do without, but rather to find acceptable substitutes. They are still proficient with the chain shirt, scale mail, breastplate, and half plate. They just won't be buying and wearing any made from metal in the PH. The writers are trusting the reader is savvy enough to read between the lines, and the PC finding (or crating) such armor is intended to be a massive carrot.
Now, someone mentions shamans earlier. A shaman NPC spellcaster might use the druid spell list, but that doesn't mean they're druids. They lack class features and defined armor and weapon proficiencies. Even the druid lacks any armor and is a 4th-level spellcaster with no Wild Shape (a 2nd-level feature). The class as it appeared in 3E cast spells as a druid, and could wear metal armor, but was limited to light armor. The 4E shaman, a primal class, could only wear cloth and leather armor. Go far enough back, and it was a variant cleric. My point here is there's no real definition of what a shaman is, so even just that becomes homebrew. And that's not something the player should get to do on their own.
As has been pointed out, there is going to be variation at any DDAL table. Since you are not in control of all DDAL games (and thank the gods for that mercy), that you don't want druids to wear metal is immaterial. The rules of the game permit it if the DM allows. There is only conflict if the DM is seeking conflict here. Sage Advice is not required for DDAL, but it is used in it per the Adventure League's own Twitter (X) page (emphasis on 'is' their own). That means that a metal-wearing druid can play at a DDAL game. Not much else in this post is worth addressing, so I will simply ignore it.
Pointed out by whom, because you've admitted your unfamiliarity.
If you're seriously going to suggest that an Adventurer's League DM would permit a druid to wear metal armor, then you're saying all have to. And that's...not happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can homebrew a consequence sure. You can homebrew almost anything for any reason.
When I said not enforceable I meant within the actual rules.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There's also no enforcement mechanism in the PH for a paladin's Sacred Oath.
That doesn't mean they get to ignore it.
The most common consequence is "Druids wear nothing better than hide armor for the entire duration of the campaign".
That subclass is referenced in the Player's Handbook, but it doesn't appear. It's also a sidebar that outlines things which might happen, but nothing is hard-coded. If there's a penalty, and subsequent atonement, for breaking one's oath, it's left up to the DM to determine.
In other words, it's a role-playing suggestion; not an actual rule.
I'll agree the DM shouldn't dictate actions and take control of the character. That should remain firmly under the player's control. I also think this was a red herring; whether you intended it to be or not. A paladin chooses their Sacred Oath, and I would hope we can all agree that following it should be more than a mere suggestion. That is, functionally, no different from the explicit expectation of a druid choosing not to wear armor and shields made from metal. We do not get to have this both ways. Either the choice and class identity matters, or it doesn't.
If future printings set forth a new expectation, then fine. Throwing it out simply because you feel like it...isn't.
Throwing it out because you feel like it actually is perfectly fine. You admitted yourself, this is a choice and a choice necessitates having more than one selectable option. If my players don't want hide and want to wear metal, they are still druids. Just druids who buck tradition.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Uh, yes it does. I do it all the time. Your character is YOUR character. You decide how they're going to behave. Simple as.
If your DM wants to run you through story narrative consequences for your choices then that's A OK. But there is no RAW consequences for a druid wearing metal armor, and no rule saying they "can't" wear it.
So if one does, then they do. And there is no RAW consequence for it.
Don't like it? Homebrew a consequence for it! D&D lives and dies by DMs being willing to bend or break rules to twll the stories they want. You're not stuck in a cage getting electrocuted every time you do something your way instead of what the book says.
Seriously. Don't like the fact it is missing a consequence? Homebrew one.
Just please be up front with your players with all your homebrew changes.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You're functionally saying that choices don't matter because there's no guaranteed consequence.
Worse, it's antagonistic. The player does whatever they want, and if it slips past the DM, then oh well.
There are no "mechanical" consequences per the RAW. The DM is welcome to and even expected to have some story driven consequences for player actions. That's what they do at the table.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There are no for "mechanical" consequemces per the RAW because there is no need for them. Druids will not wear armor made of metal so there is no need for the rules to say what will happen if to do (because they wont)
A player wanting to play a "druid" who will wear armor is the one wanting to go into homebrew, If they agree something with the DM as so how it will work great if don't pretend it is RAW.
It is not homebrew if a player has a druid PC wearing metal. A DM can permit it and the decision is supported by the rules of the game without veering into homebrew territory.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Have you tried it in organized play?
No, have you?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Unless an official ruling has been made for organized play, I expect inconsistent results, the same as you get anywhere else.
I've run it. Adventurer's League modules tend to move at a blistering pace, so there isn't much room for compromise or negotiating. If someone wanted to try and delay the game, they can simply be booted. Each adventure has all the information necessary to adjust encounters by party size, so the loss of one stubborn goat isn't felt that strongly. You run with the assumptions presented, because the point is the adventure itself, and you can't have anything another DM wouldn't allow. This includes the restriction on druids and metal armor; regardless of your opinion on it being fluff or mechanical.
In reality, it's both. There are mechanical differences between metallic and nonmetallic armors. That said, there are rules for running hardcover adventures in DDAL. They have a bit more freedom because the usual time constraints of a convention don't need to be followed. Still, they bound by the same expectation that you can take a character back and forth. The same core assumptions must hold true.
A druid chooses not to wear metal armor; much in the same way a vegan abstains from consuming meat and animal byproducts. Vegans have the same teeth and enzymes as the rest of us; they aren't some other species. For the two, neither one lacks the capacity. But it is part of their identity. It's important to them; even if you don't personally understand why. And this is presented to the player in the core rulebooks. They're making an informed decision when they decide to play anything, so saying "You don't get to decide how I play my character" is a fallacy. It always has been. You don't get to eat boiled chicken and still be considered vegan. The druid chooses not to wear metal armor because the player read that parenthetical and agreed with that choice.
The next edition of the PH may change that, and we'll cross that bridge if or when we get to it. But for now, under the rules of the 2014 PH, this is the reality. You're free to do whatever in your home games. That still doesn't change core assumptions.
"Druids will not wear armor" does not mean everything not wearing armor is a druid. A horse will not eat meat dies that mean that a cow is a horse because they don't eat meat?. Wizards Sorcerers and Rogues are not proficient in metal armor as part of there class training but a Mountain dwarf who grew up in a clan where everyone is taught how to wear medium armor effectively may be seen wearing half plate on the battlefield even if they subsequantly studied the arcane arts and became a wizard.
If the PC want to play a barbarian that casts spells while raging ashould they be allowed to becasue while the rules say barbarians can't they want their character to be different?. What if the player wants their character to cast 9th level spells from the start of the game. The PHB says they can not do so and very few people complain.
I know your arguement is the "will not" does not mean "can not" but for practical purposes they are the same. If you will not do something you do not do and and if you can not do something you do not do it.
The player who wants to play a character wearing metal armor has plenty of choice, they can choose and class other than druid.
At this juncture, I can only assume your take is deliberately obtuse in some attempt to paint me as either a fool or disingenuous. But in the spirit of maintaining an honest conversation...
Now, with that out of the way, are you prepared for a serious discussion?
I find it interesting that you are assuming a conflict between the player and DM if the player wants to be a metal-wearing druid. Not everyone seeks conflict with their players over this issue or relish the opportunity to kick players from the table. May I ask why you seem to?
That said, if any player were immediately kicked from an Adventure League game for wanting to be a metal-wearing druid, I would be happy to host such a player at my game. I might even make it an Adventure League game just so there is a place where people can play organized play and still have fun if they had an experience with a DM who runs games where raising an issue gets players removed from the game.
Identity is funny in that it can adjust when needed. We, as people can rationalize nearly anything and every person is a compilation of different identities. We carry multiple 'hats' that make up our various identities and swap them to suit our own personal needs. A vegan can rationalize eating meat if they really want to and a druid can be an individual who disagrees with the general philosophy of what worked metal represents. Identity is not universally shared and where it is shared, it is not shared to the same degree among all people - such is the nature of human behavior. We adhere to groups mostly and will make some compromise to our own values to fit within groups... to an extent, and abandon facets of an identity when necessary. Catholic priests used to be unable to be seen without their cassock until there were those who flouted the rule on garb. Now it is a requirement that is far more loosely applied and in some cases, not at all. What you describe, an unmovable, univocal philosophy among all peoples, is simply impossible and demonstrates a general lack of understanding on the topic of identity.
A vegan is still a vegan if they eat boiled chicken. Most vegans were not born vegans and most had, at one point, eaten meat. If a vegan is put in a situation where their survival requires them to eat meat and they do, they are certainly still vegans if after they are out of that situation, they pursue veganism again. Veganism is more than one action or decision point, it is a philosophy and way of life. Druids seems to be similar in this respect.
Now, I don't expect a DM who seeks conflict with their players to really grasp all that but we do have official rulings that druids can wear worked metal if they want to with their DM's approval. I would encourage any DM to think about whether a not-universal idea of a druid is more important to them than their player's enjoyment. Some DMs might hold to tradition, but I hope there are more who are open to their player's needs.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yes, there would be a conflict. The issue is a DDAL character must be playable at every single table. What you personally allow at home isn't relevant. They can't have loot that isn't from an adventure on their log sheet. There is something of an honor system in play, but a savvy DM will sniff it out and would be well within their rights to deny a space in the game. You're agreeing to play by a set of rules. That's not a suggestion.
A PC which lacks proficiency/training with certain armors can still choose to wear them, but it has little mechanical reason to. What it might gain in armor class will cost it in other areas. A druid has proficiency/training with certain armors, but similarly has no reason to wear all of them. The intent isn't to simply do without, but rather to find acceptable substitutes. They are still proficient with the chain shirt, scale mail, breastplate, and half plate. They just won't be buying and wearing any made from metal in the PH. The writers are trusting the reader is savvy enough to read between the lines, and the PC finding (or crating) such armor is intended to be a massive carrot.
Now, someone mentions shamans earlier. A shaman NPC spellcaster might use the druid spell list, but that doesn't mean they're druids. They lack class features and defined armor and weapon proficiencies. Even the druid lacks any armor and is a 4th-level spellcaster with no Wild Shape (a 2nd-level feature). The class as it appeared in 3E cast spells as a druid, and could wear metal armor, but was limited to light armor. The 4E shaman, a primal class, could only wear cloth and leather armor. Go far enough back, and it was a variant cleric. My point here is there's no real definition of what a shaman is, so even just that becomes homebrew. And that's not something the player should get to do on their own.
As has been pointed out, there is going to be variation at any DDAL table. Since you are not in control of all DDAL games (and thank the gods for that mercy), that you don't want druids to wear metal is immaterial. The rules of the game permit it if the DM allows. There is only conflict if the DM is seeking conflict here. Sage Advice is not required for DDAL, but it is used in it per the Adventure League's own Twitter (X) page (emphasis on 'is' their own). That means that a metal-wearing druid can play at a DDAL game. Not much else in this post is worth addressing, so I will simply ignore it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Pointed out by whom, because you've admitted your unfamiliarity.
If you're seriously going to suggest that an Adventurer's League DM would permit a druid to wear metal armor, then you're saying all have to. And that's...not happening.