In a world like the forgotten realms a case can be made for a particular Druid to wear metal armor (probably cold worked copper, arsenical bronze or meteoric iron/steel as these would be found in native forms in the “natural” world. In a purely homebrewed world talk to the DM as their worldbuilding may have placed restrictions you need to abide by. Now yes even then you can choose to wear it but the the DM is free to tell you your spells fizzle and you can’t wildshape because your metal armor interferes with the flow of the magic needed to do these things..
The basic rule of D&D is the players decide there actions and the DM determines the consequences of those actions.
The rules state "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" I agree it is an odd rule given that are willing to wield a weapon made of metal but the rule is there.
The DM had decide the ignore the rule, any movement away from RAW is a DM decision not a player decision (though they may consult with theplayers)
It is up to the DM to decide whether it is possible to make armor made up of materials such as bone and is so that the AC of it would be and any other features (e.g .imposing steath disadvantage or movement restrictions for low strength characters)
The player can say "while druids in the this world will not wear metal armor mine chooses to do so" but the DM decides the consequences of that. That can be that a druid that decides to wear metal armor loses all druid class features (possibly even permanently). As the DM has this right it is they that ultimately decide whether druids wearing metal armor is possible.
I'm glad that this fluff, is being changed to a rule in the new update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
For those Druids playing with a DM who want to play the RAW, one option for is to find/buy medium (+1 - +3) dragon scale mail armor. Dragon scales are not metal.
Other magical items a Druid can use to improve their AC:
A +1 - +3 magical shield (bonus for the Sentinel Shield), which can be made of wood
I don't view an RP choice as a rule. If it was a rule, it would say a druid cannot wear metal armor. It doesn't say that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't view an RP choice as a rule. If it was a rule, it would say a druid cannot wear metal armor. It doesn't say that.
You can read the text either way. I perfect valid interpretation of "Druids will not wear armor or use shiled made of metal" is anyone willing to wear metal armor is not a druid.
"Druids cannot wear armor...made of metal " means if someone casts dominate person on a druid and tells them to put on a breastplate they would be physically unable to do so. "Druids will not wear armor...made of metal" means that could could put on the armor if under a dominate person spell becasue they would not be doing so willingly.
I don't agree. if the druid was somehow not allowed to wear metal armor, the proficiency would state "light armor and hide armor" as hide is the only form of medium armor that isn't metal (without getting exotic). it doesn't say that. It's proficient in wearing metal armor. It's proficient in metal armor, because part of becoming a druid was learning how to wear it. Now, RAI, I 100% agree with you. The intent is that druids do not wear metal armor. Adding an exception, of will not...that is a choice on the character's part. Not a rule. Particularly, since re-skinning is the name of the game.
OK, my druid doesn't identify as a druid, he identifies as a shaman. Now I get to wear metal armor because my title is not "druid", right?
The new rules fix this once they come out. No more medium armor, no more scimitars. Now it's a rule, not a choice, and that makes it ok in my eyes.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't agree. if the druid was somehow not allowed to wear metal armor, the proficiency would state "light armor and hide armor" as hide is the only form of medium armor that isn't metal (without getting exotic). it doesn't say that. It's proficient in wearing metal armor. It's proficient in metal armor, because part of becoming a druid was learning how to wear it. Now, RAI, I 100% agree with you. The intent is that druids do not wear metal armor. Adding an exception, of will not...that is a choice on the character's part. Not a rule. Particularly, since re-skinning is the name of the game.
OK, my druid doesn't identify as a druid, he identifies as a shaman. Now I get to wear metal armor because my title is not "druid", right?
The new rules fix this once they come out. No more medium armor, no more scimitars. Now it's a rule, not a choice, and that makes it ok in my eyes.
I don't agree. if the druid was somehow not allowed to wear metal armor, the proficiency would state "light armor and hide armor" as hide is the only form of medium armor that isn't metal (without getting exotic).
Why not "get exotic", I have always thought one of the main reason dragon scale mail was put into the game was to provide a way in which the DM could provide a druid with an upgrade tp armor when they get into higher tiers.
I haven't played D&D long enough to know if it was an issue with earlier editions but I can see why WOTC seem to be about to move away frm the current rules because a lot of players want their druids to do something druids "will not" do.
I don't agree. if the druid was somehow not allowed to wear metal armor, the proficiency would state "light armor and hide armor" as hide is the only form of medium armor that isn't metal (without getting exotic). it doesn't say that. It's proficient in wearing metal armor. It's proficient in metal armor, because part of becoming a druid was learning how to wear it. Now, RAI, I 100% agree with you. The intent is that druids do not wear metal armor. Adding an exception, of will not...that is a choice on the character's part. Not a rule. Particularly, since re-skinning is the name of the game.
OK, my druid doesn't identify as a druid, he identifies as a shaman. Now I get to wear metal armor because my title is not "druid", right?
The new rules fix this once they come out. No more medium armor, no more scimitars. Now it's a rule, not a choice, and that makes it ok in my eyes.
The druid, as of 2014, is proficient with armors which can be made of metal but do not have to be. What you consider flavor text is a perfect example of future-proofing. Exotic materials can and do exist for armors both magical and mundane. We've gone over this, too, and there's nothing stopping a DM from inventing even more of their own.
It doesn't matter if the rule is externally imposed (this is their proficiency) or self-imposed (this is their choice and part of their identity). The rule still exists. Players of paladins still agree to the terms of their chosen Sacred Oath, do they not? Or do they get to ignore that because it's honestly just flavor and only the mechanics matter?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
No. It's not a rule. A rule is set in stone. Won't is a choice.
My shaman does not identify as a druid. Therefore the restriction does not apply for RP reasons.
Exactly right!
Some rules will tell you you CAN'T do something. Some will tell you that you CAN do something.
And there is a third type of rule that is if you do something there is a consequence for it.
We can even see that plain as day with armor rules. Anyone can wear it. But if you choose to wear armor that you don't have proficiency for, well, you suffer the specific listed consequence for that.
Without a consequence it isn't enforceable. Because it is a text blurb about preference. And that's it. That's called flavor text.
If it had been a rule, there would be a consequence for doing it.
Because I assure you if I'm a stars druid, or even a wildfire druid, I'm going to buy and then don some breastplate armor. There is nothing reasonable stopping that from happening.
So then what? Because that choice was always outside the DM's control. I the player choose the characters action and I say he equips it.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
edit: The irony is that my own game's druids are rarely ever caught in metal armor. Because the different druidic circles are ferociously territorial and hunt each other. And they all have the heat metal on their class list. So it is just a common sense thing.
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.
Since this thread is still going another thought occurred to me: maybe the designers didn't want players to go out and custom make polar bear sized plate barding (it only costs 6,000 gold), then put it on their druid after they wildshape into a polar bear. Or giant scorpion or whatever. Because that is golden compass territory :D
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.
In a world like the forgotten realms a case can be made for a particular Druid to wear metal armor (probably cold worked copper, arsenical bronze or meteoric iron/steel as these would be found in native forms in the “natural” world. In a purely homebrewed world talk to the DM as their worldbuilding may have placed restrictions you need to abide by. Now yes even then you can choose to wear it but the the DM is free to tell you your spells fizzle and you can’t wildshape because your metal armor interferes with the flow of the magic needed to do these things..
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The basic rule of D&D is the players decide there actions and the DM determines the consequences of those actions.
The rules state "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" I agree it is an odd rule given that are willing to wield a weapon made of metal but the rule is there.
I'm glad that this fluff, is being changed to a rule in the new update.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Wow! A thing I actually like about one d&d, for once. I'm kind of amazed. Nice!
For those Druids playing with a DM who want to play the RAW, one option for is to find/buy medium (+1 - +3) dragon scale mail armor. Dragon scales are not metal.
Other magical items a Druid can use to improve their AC:
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
I don't view an RP choice as a rule. If it was a rule, it would say a druid cannot wear metal armor. It doesn't say that.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You can read the text either way. I perfect valid interpretation of "Druids will not wear armor or use shiled made of metal" is anyone willing to wear metal armor is not a druid.
"Druids cannot wear armor...made of metal " means if someone casts dominate person on a druid and tells them to put on a breastplate they would be physically unable to do so. "Druids will not wear armor...made of metal" means that could could put on the armor if under a dominate person spell becasue they would not be doing so willingly.
I don't agree. if the druid was somehow not allowed to wear metal armor, the proficiency would state "light armor and hide armor" as hide is the only form of medium armor that isn't metal (without getting exotic). it doesn't say that. It's proficient in wearing metal armor. It's proficient in metal armor, because part of becoming a druid was learning how to wear it. Now, RAI, I 100% agree with you. The intent is that druids do not wear metal armor. Adding an exception, of will not...that is a choice on the character's part. Not a rule. Particularly, since re-skinning is the name of the game.
OK, my druid doesn't identify as a druid, he identifies as a shaman. Now I get to wear metal armor because my title is not "druid", right?
The new rules fix this once they come out. No more medium armor, no more scimitars. Now it's a rule, not a choice, and that makes it ok in my eyes.
PROFICIENCIES
Saving Throws: Intelligence, Wisdom
Skills (Choose 2): Arcana, Animal Handling, Insight,
Medicine, Nature, Perception, Religion, Survival
Weapons: Simple Weapons
Tools: Herbalism Kit
ARMOR TRAINING
Light Armor, Shields
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Why not "get exotic", I have always thought one of the main reason dragon scale mail was put into the game was to provide a way in which the DM could provide a druid with an upgrade tp armor when they get into higher tiers.
I haven't played D&D long enough to know if it was an issue with earlier editions but I can see why WOTC seem to be about to move away frm the current rules because a lot of players want their druids to do something druids "will not" do.
The druid, as of 2014, is proficient with armors which can be made of metal but do not have to be. What you consider flavor text is a perfect example of future-proofing. Exotic materials can and do exist for armors both magical and mundane. We've gone over this, too, and there's nothing stopping a DM from inventing even more of their own.
It doesn't matter if the rule is externally imposed (this is their proficiency) or self-imposed (this is their choice and part of their identity). The rule still exists. Players of paladins still agree to the terms of their chosen Sacred Oath, do they not? Or do they get to ignore that because it's honestly just flavor and only the mechanics matter?
Consent is king, and it's informed.
No. It's not a rule. A rule is set in stone. Won't is a choice.
My shaman does not identify as a druid. Therefore the restriction does not apply for RP reasons.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Exactly right!
Some rules will tell you you CAN'T do something. Some will tell you that you CAN do something.
And there is a third type of rule that is if you do something there is a consequence for it.
We can even see that plain as day with armor rules. Anyone can wear it. But if you choose to wear armor that you don't have proficiency for, well, you suffer the specific listed consequence for that.
Without a consequence it isn't enforceable. Because it is a text blurb about preference. And that's it. That's called flavor text.
If it had been a rule, there would be a consequence for doing it.
Because I assure you if I'm a stars druid, or even a wildfire druid, I'm going to buy and then don some breastplate armor. There is nothing reasonable stopping that from happening.
So then what? Because that choice was always outside the DM's control. I the player choose the characters action and I say he equips it.
So then what? Again... the book is silent because it is not a rule. It is unenforceable.
edit: The irony is that my own game's druids are rarely ever caught in metal armor. Because the different druidic circles are ferociously territorial and hunt each other. And they all have the heat metal on their class list. So it is just a common sense thing.
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.
And if the DM says the breastplate isn't legal? Then what?
You all keep acting like the only consequences are mechanical and spelled out in the rules. You're ignoring the social contract.
It is absolutely enforceable. Plenty of things with no defined game mechanics remain enforceable.
Since this thread is still going another thought occurred to me: maybe the designers didn't want players to go out and custom make polar bear sized plate barding (it only costs 6,000 gold), then put it on their druid after they wildshape into a polar bear. Or giant scorpion or whatever. Because that is golden compass territory :D
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