But this seems to fly in the face of D&D as a roleplaying game. The DM should never be telling a player what their character would choose to do. They can simply inform them of the consequences of their choices.
This is why having "Certain characters 'won't' do X" is bad writing. No sensible Rogue would ever wield a Greatclub, but if they choose to do so they can. They just suffer the consequences of never being able to use Sneak Attack. But if you had a Rogue in your game that said they wanted to wield that +1 Greatclub, you wouldn't say, "No! Rogues will not choose to do that!" You would say, "Okay, but you won't be able to use Sneak Attack while wielding it." They would be choosing to hamper themselves, but you would still let them do it.
This is where the whole thing starts to fall apart. Because now you have DMs telling players what their choices can be. Not that there will be X consequence, but just "YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR YOURSELF!" The game is full of PCs and builds that buck the norms of the class, but they are still allowed in game. Why is this one so horrendous that players are not allowed that choice?
I do agree it is badly writing because many players like to play contrary characters and a druid that does something that druids "won't" can be enticing to them. I didn't say "option 3" was a good solution only that it was consistent with the rules.
However "can't" also takes away player agency. If a player wants their barbarian/druid who casts spell while raging if the DM says they can not are they removing player agency? If a player has a concept of playing Dumbo, a flying Loxoden, in the AL most people would say they can't (at least until they get access to the fly spell or a magic item that allows flying). Player agency only works within the rules of the game.
The game has "hard" rules like barbarians can not cast spells while raging and "soft" rules like a character will not wear armor they are not proficient in because any benefits of wearing that armor are far outweighed by the fact that "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spell. The rules don't make it clear which is the case for "druids will not wear metal armor", they should have either said that druids can not wear metal armor, or specified the consequences of them doing so. In a non-AL game I would probably rule the consequences are the same as not being proficient. You could argue that because the rules don't specify why druids wont wear metal armor and therefore in the absence of a rule an AL DM can decide the consequence but that would lead to a very different experence for the druid every game they played.
I frankly don’t know where the idea came from that GMs don’t tell players what to play. They absolutely do by choosing the setting. You aren’t going to play a Russian cosmonaut in the Forgotten Realms or a Superhero in Ravenloft.
Whether or not Druids where metal armor is a setting feature.
I frankly don’t know where the idea came from that GMs don’t tell players what to play. They absolutely do by choosing the setting. You aren’t going to play a Russian cosmonaut in the Forgotten Realms or a Superhero in Ravenloft.
Whether or not Druids where metal armor is a setting feature.
Again, this is really disingenuous. You cannot play a Russian Cosmonaut in D&D because Russia and (barring Spelljammer) space travel don't exist. Druids exist. Metal armors exist. How is it a setting feature saying that every single person in this particular group makes this exact same choice.
And honestly, you could absolutely play a Russian Cosmonaut that was pulled through a wormhole on his last mission that landed him in the Forgotten Realms. Make him an Artificer as his technology all looks like magic to the people of the Forgotten Realms. (his Walkie Talkie is just Sending Stones, his helmet and oxygen tank are just the Aquatic Adaptation of Alter Self, etc.)
But this seems to fly in the face of D&D as a roleplaying game. The DM should never be telling a player what their character would choose to do. They can simply inform them of the consequences of their choices.
This is why having "Certain characters 'won't' do X" is bad writing. No sensible Rogue would ever wield a Greatclub, but if they choose to do so they can. They just suffer the consequences of never being able to use Sneak Attack. But if you had a Rogue in your game that said they wanted to wield that +1 Greatclub, you wouldn't say, "No! Rogues will not choose to do that!" You would say, "Okay, but you won't be able to use Sneak Attack while wielding it." They would be choosing to hamper themselves, but you would still let them do it.
This is where the whole thing starts to fall apart. Because now you have DMs telling players what their choices can be. Not that there will be X consequence, but just "YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR YOURSELF!" The game is full of PCs and builds that buck the norms of the class, but they are still allowed in game. Why is this one so horrendous that players are not allowed that choice?
I do agree it is badly writing because many players like to play contrary characters and a druid that does something that druids "won't" can be enticing to them. I didn't say "option 3" was a good solution only that it was consistent with the rules.
However "can't" also takes away player agency. If a player wants their barbarian/druid who casts spell while raging if the DM says they can not are they removing player agency? If a player has a concept of playing Dumbo, a flying Loxoden, in the AL most people would say they can't (at least until they get access to the fly spell or a magic item that allows flying). Player agency only works within the rules of the game.
The game has "hard" rules like barbarians can not cast spells while raging and "soft" rules like a character will not wear armor they are not proficient in because any benefits of wearing that armor are far outweighed by the fact that "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spell. The rules don't make it clear which is the case for "druids will not wear metal armor", they should have either said that druids can not wear metal armor, or specified the consequences of them doing so. In a non-AL game I would probably rule the consequences are the same as not being proficient. You could argue that because the rules don't specify why druids wont wear metal armor and therefore in the absence of a rule an AL DM can decide the consequence but that would lead to a very different experence for the druid every game they played.
"Can't" in the rules always has a reason/actual rule with it. A PC can absolutely choose to play a Wizard/Barbarian multicass (I have a friend who has done this). They can absolutely choose to Rage while concentrating on a spell. The result of this is that concentration drops. Heck, they can even choose to take the Cast a Spell action while Raging, but nothing will happen. You're ruling would be more akin to telling that Wiz/Barb that he cannot choose to Rage while he has concentration up because a Wizard wouldn't choose to drop concentration like that.
The issue is that it's not a rule; it has no consequences. The only way to adjudicate this is to either homebrew a consequence (which is not allowed in AL) or making the decision for the player what their character does (which flies in the face of the How to Play section of the PHB). The game is bound by the rules, which determine what happens when a PC chooses to do something. There should never be an instance where the DM tells the player that they are not allowed to make a choice. That is the fundamental core of D&D.
I frankly don’t know where the idea came from that GMs don’t tell players what to play. They absolutely do by choosing the setting. You aren’t going to play a Russian cosmonaut in the Forgotten Realms or a Superhero in Ravenloft.
Whether or not Druids where metal armor is a setting feature.
Again, this is really disingenuous. You cannot play a Russian Cosmonaut in D&D because Russia and (barring Spelljammer) space travel don't exist. Druids exist. Metal armors exist. How is it a setting feature saying that every single person in this particular group makes this exact same choice.
And honestly, you could absolutely play a Russian Cosmonaut that was pulled through a wormhole on his last mission that landed him in the Forgotten Realms. Make him an Artificer as his technology all looks like magic to the people of the Forgotten Realms. (his Walkie Talkie is just Sending Stones, his helmet and oxygen tank are just the Aquatic Adaptation of Alter Self, etc.)
But this seems to fly in the face of D&D as a roleplaying game. The DM should never be telling a player what their character would choose to do. They can simply inform them of the consequences of their choices.
This is why having "Certain characters 'won't' do X" is bad writing. No sensible Rogue would ever wield a Greatclub, but if they choose to do so they can. They just suffer the consequences of never being able to use Sneak Attack. But if you had a Rogue in your game that said they wanted to wield that +1 Greatclub, you wouldn't say, "No! Rogues will not choose to do that!" You would say, "Okay, but you won't be able to use Sneak Attack while wielding it." They would be choosing to hamper themselves, but you would still let them do it.
This is where the whole thing starts to fall apart. Because now you have DMs telling players what their choices can be. Not that there will be X consequence, but just "YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR YOURSELF!" The game is full of PCs and builds that buck the norms of the class, but they are still allowed in game. Why is this one so horrendous that players are not allowed that choice?
I do agree it is badly writing because many players like to play contrary characters and a druid that does something that druids "won't" can be enticing to them. I didn't say "option 3" was a good solution only that it was consistent with the rules.
However "can't" also takes away player agency. If a player wants their barbarian/druid who casts spell while raging if the DM says they can not are they removing player agency? If a player has a concept of playing Dumbo, a flying Loxoden, in the AL most people would say they can't (at least until they get access to the fly spell or a magic item that allows flying). Player agency only works within the rules of the game.
The game has "hard" rules like barbarians can not cast spells while raging and "soft" rules like a character will not wear armor they are not proficient in because any benefits of wearing that armor are far outweighed by the fact that "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spell. The rules don't make it clear which is the case for "druids will not wear metal armor", they should have either said that druids can not wear metal armor, or specified the consequences of them doing so. In a non-AL game I would probably rule the consequences are the same as not being proficient. You could argue that because the rules don't specify why druids wont wear metal armor and therefore in the absence of a rule an AL DM can decide the consequence but that would lead to a very different experence for the druid every game they played.
"Can't" in the rules always has a reason/actual rule with it. A PC can absolutely choose to play a Wizard/Barbarian multicass (I have a friend who has done this). They can absolutely choose to Rage while concentrating on a spell. The result of this is that concentration drops. Heck, they can even choose to take the Cast a Spell action while Raging, but nothing will happen. You're ruling would be more akin to telling that Wiz/Barb that he cannot choose to Rage while he has concentration up because a Wizard wouldn't choose to drop concentration like that.
The issue is that it's not a rule; it has no consequences. The only way to adjudicate this is to either homebrew a consequence (which is not allowed in AL) or making the decision for the player what their character does (which flies in the face of the How to Play section of the PHB). The game is bound by the rules, which determine what happens when a PC chooses to do something. There should never be an instance where the DM tells the player that they are not allowed to make a choice. That is the fundamental core of D&D.
Something called “Druids” exist in the setting if the GM says it does. Exactly what that thing is (including whether Druids can wear metal armor) is up to the GM.
The GM controls the setting. That includes classes. For example,, in many campaigns monks aren’t monastics.
Really, Adventurer’s League is the worst thing that ever happened to DnD. It creates a sense of unearned entitlement in some players.
I frankly don’t know where the idea came from that GMs don’t tell players what to play. They absolutely do by choosing the setting. You aren’t going to play a Russian cosmonaut in the Forgotten Realms or a Superhero in Ravenloft.
Whether or not Druids where metal armor is a setting feature.
Again, this is really disingenuous. You cannot play a Russian Cosmonaut in D&D because Russia and (barring Spelljammer) space travel don't exist. Druids exist. Metal armors exist. How is it a setting feature saying that every single person in this particular group makes this exact same choice.
And honestly, you could absolutely play a Russian Cosmonaut that was pulled through a wormhole on his last mission that landed him in the Forgotten Realms. Make him an Artificer as his technology all looks like magic to the people of the Forgotten Realms. (his Walkie Talkie is just Sending Stones, his helmet and oxygen tank are just the Aquatic Adaptation of Alter Self, etc.)
But this seems to fly in the face of D&D as a roleplaying game. The DM should never be telling a player what their character would choose to do. They can simply inform them of the consequences of their choices.
This is why having "Certain characters 'won't' do X" is bad writing. No sensible Rogue would ever wield a Greatclub, but if they choose to do so they can. They just suffer the consequences of never being able to use Sneak Attack. But if you had a Rogue in your game that said they wanted to wield that +1 Greatclub, you wouldn't say, "No! Rogues will not choose to do that!" You would say, "Okay, but you won't be able to use Sneak Attack while wielding it." They would be choosing to hamper themselves, but you would still let them do it.
This is where the whole thing starts to fall apart. Because now you have DMs telling players what their choices can be. Not that there will be X consequence, but just "YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR YOURSELF!" The game is full of PCs and builds that buck the norms of the class, but they are still allowed in game. Why is this one so horrendous that players are not allowed that choice?
I do agree it is badly writing because many players like to play contrary characters and a druid that does something that druids "won't" can be enticing to them. I didn't say "option 3" was a good solution only that it was consistent with the rules.
However "can't" also takes away player agency. If a player wants their barbarian/druid who casts spell while raging if the DM says they can not are they removing player agency? If a player has a concept of playing Dumbo, a flying Loxoden, in the AL most people would say they can't (at least until they get access to the fly spell or a magic item that allows flying). Player agency only works within the rules of the game.
The game has "hard" rules like barbarians can not cast spells while raging and "soft" rules like a character will not wear armor they are not proficient in because any benefits of wearing that armor are far outweighed by the fact that "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spell. The rules don't make it clear which is the case for "druids will not wear metal armor", they should have either said that druids can not wear metal armor, or specified the consequences of them doing so. In a non-AL game I would probably rule the consequences are the same as not being proficient. You could argue that because the rules don't specify why druids wont wear metal armor and therefore in the absence of a rule an AL DM can decide the consequence but that would lead to a very different experence for the druid every game they played.
"Can't" in the rules always has a reason/actual rule with it. A PC can absolutely choose to play a Wizard/Barbarian multicass (I have a friend who has done this). They can absolutely choose to Rage while concentrating on a spell. The result of this is that concentration drops. Heck, they can even choose to take the Cast a Spell action while Raging, but nothing will happen. You're ruling would be more akin to telling that Wiz/Barb that he cannot choose to Rage while he has concentration up because a Wizard wouldn't choose to drop concentration like that.
The issue is that it's not a rule; it has no consequences. The only way to adjudicate this is to either homebrew a consequence (which is not allowed in AL) or making the decision for the player what their character does (which flies in the face of the How to Play section of the PHB). The game is bound by the rules, which determine what happens when a PC chooses to do something. There should never be an instance where the DM tells the player that they are not allowed to make a choice. That is the fundamental core of D&D.
Something called “Druids” exist in the setting if the GM says it does. Exactly what that thing is (including whether Druids can wear metal armor) is up to the GM.
The GM controls the setting. That includes classes. For example,, in many campaigns monks aren’t monastics.
Really, Adventurer’s League is the worst thing that ever happened to DnD. It creates a sense of unearned entitlement in some players.
Now you're being really, REALLY disingenuous. Druids exist because they are part of the PHB, the very core-iest core rules of the game. A DM is well within his right to ban any class from his game, but that is not RAW, that is homebrew. The DM is also well within his rights to say that, no Fighters don't get three attacks at level 11, but again, this is homebrew. There is not a single published adventure that bans specific classes (or even races if memory serves).
But we are not talking about homebrew right now, we're talking RAW. RAW, the PHB is making a choice for a player, but there is nothing that happens if the player makes a different choice. So the RAW of the PHB is self contradicting in that in one area it says that the player makes choices for their PC, but the Druid section says, "YOU MUST ALWAYS MAKE THIS CHOICE!"
If the intent was for Druids not to be proficient with metal armor, there has been plenty of time since the nearly 10 years that the PHB has been out for an errata to take place. From a lore/roleplaying perspective, it seems very odd that Druids will only wear something that was once living. Metal armor is the only thing (aside from stone, but that is really impractical) that can be made into armor/clothing that has never been alive.
So CAN Druids wear metal armor? The PHB leaves us with a big shrug and no good way for a DM to adjudicate.
This is like listening to a Southern Baptist and Pentecostal arguing over what is RAW in the Bible. I. Will no longer contribute to this insanity and deeply regret my part in creating it.
I think this has been a very illuminating discussion on differing DMing styles and the way those differences will impact the application and enforcement of the rules of the game. It seems that asking the DM about being a metal-wearing druid is a really good litmus test to measure the quality of a potential DM. Some will say yes, some will say no with good table-specific reasons why they are saying no, some will seek to argue with players, and some still will outright kick players for wanting it. Best to know what you are getting in session 0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Just curious: for those of you who are in favor of druids wearing armor (and this appears to be where things are going with UA8), how do you feel about the weapons limits of the druid class?
Just curious: for those of you who are in favor of druids wearing armor (and this appears to be where things are going with UA8), how do you feel about the weapons limits of the druid class?
Do you want to see the druid weapon options expanded?
Good question. It has honestly never come up at my tables. I don't have any feelings one way or another but if a player really wanted to be proficient in something else, I probably would just let them have it. If they envision a druid whose weapon of choice was a longsword, I don't know that it makes any real difference for base attacks. The limitation on Shillelagh is beyond the scope of weapon proficiency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
Do you want to see the druid weapon options expanded?
Having a ranged option that's not totally terrible, such as a shortbow or light crossbow, would be nice at very low levels, but it stops being a relevant concern quite fast.
I think the weapon selection is fine. They get club and quarterstaff pretty much solely for Shillelagh as almost all of the rest are finesse. I don't know that I have ever seen a Druid using a weapon outside of Shillelagh as that would require Str on top of high Wis, Con, and Dex.
And any Druid is welcome to choose to use any weapon. They just wouldn't get PB if they're not proficient.
On the topic of weapons I get the feeling that all DMs who say druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) wear metals armour should also say that druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) use scimitars, sickles, daggers, javelins and maces either, unless they are made of wood XD.
Making leather or hide armour and working wood does require a certain level of technological advancement, it's not more natural than working metal, only more primitive. IMO if you don't let your druid players wear metal for role reason you should just have them run around naked, as any form of clothing or armour is just as unnatural...I mean it's not like metal armour is being artificially created in a lab, it's made of all natural materials.
You might say that creating metal represents domination over nature, because of the was you need to work ores and forge, which in a way corrupts it, or whatever...but I'd argue that treating leather is no more natural either.
On the topic of weapons I get the feeling that all DMs who say druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) wear metals armour should also say that druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) use scimitars, sickles, daggers, javelins and maces either, unless they are made of wood XD.
Making leather or hide armour and working wood does require a certain level of technological advancement, it's not more natural than working metal, only more primitive. IMO if you don't let your druid players wear metal for role reason you should just have them run around naked, as any form of clothing or armour is just as unnatural...I mean it's not like metal armour is being artificially created in a lab, it's made of all natural materials.
You might say that creating metal represents domination over nature, because of the was you need to work ores and forge, which in a way corrupts it, or whatever...but I'd argue that treating leather is no more natural either.
What matters is buying into the conceit of the fiction. Unfortunately, I think the design team took too much for granted when drafting the 2014 edition. Some rules are half-baked, and some useful bits of lore are missing. It wasn't written for new players, but it exploded in popularity. Ergo, many exchanges like this are likely growing pains.
For example, power sources change from edition to edition. Druids have drawn their magic from divine, fey, and primal sources in the past. Fey and iron do not get along. Druids, for a time, didn't wear metal made from iron (including steel) because it interfered with their ability to wield magic. But the iron and steel weapons could still be effective against rogue fey creatures, so they weren't discarded. That said, later editions began to make exceptions. Druids in 3.X who worshiped Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) could wear such metal armors without penalty, but it isn't explained why. Is it a gift from the divine, or is the restriction more psychosomatic? Even the editions with a rule for everything still left some things up to interpretation.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the scimitar proficiency was a relic of some good old-fashioned prejudice. The sickle may come from the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe, and scimitars are vaguely larger versions of them in the sense that both have curved blades. The idea that scimitars are from cultures and regions which have nothing to do with the Celts simply didn't matter to those writers. Scimitars have since also come to be associated with elves, and elves have a fey connection as well. It's not all meant to be representative of the real world, and D&D has very much evolved from a veritable kitchen sink full of inspirations.
As for working leather, you can do the tanning process with lime (crushed limestone, a sedimentary rock) and urine. It doesn't take the fires of industry. You aren't heating iron to unnatural temperatures. Lava and Magma have lower temperatures of around 700°C and reach upper temperatures around 1,200°C and 1,300°C, respectively. Working iron requires going even hotter than that: 1,370°C. Good luck getting it done with much less.
Like, a shortbow and spear are technology. What matters is how it's used and whether natural materials and processes are followed. Tanning leather is living off the land. Working iron is subjugating the natural world.
On the topic of weapons I get the feeling that all DMs who say druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) wear metals armour should also say that druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) use scimitars, sickles, daggers, javelins and maces either, unless they are made of wood XD.
Making leather or hide armour and working wood does require a certain level of technological advancement, it's not more natural than working metal, only more primitive. IMO if you don't let your druid players wear metal for role reason you should just have them run around naked, as any form of clothing or armour is just as unnatural...I mean it's not like metal armour is being artificially created in a lab, it's made of all natural materials.
You might say that creating metal represents domination over nature, because of the was you need to work ores and forge, which in a way corrupts it, or whatever...but I'd argue that treating leather is no more natural either.
What matters is buying into the conceit of the fiction. Unfortunately, I think the design team took too much for granted when drafting the 2014 edition. Some rules are half-baked, and some useful bits of lore are missing. It wasn't written for new players, but it exploded in popularity. Ergo, many exchanges like this are likely growing pains.
For example, power sources change from edition to edition. Druids have drawn their magic from divine, fey, and primal sources in the past. Fey and iron do not get along. Druids, for a time, didn't wear metal made from iron (including steel) because it interfered with their ability to wield magic. But the iron and steel weapons could still be effective against rogue fey creatures, so they weren't discarded. That said, later editions began to make exceptions. Druids in 3.X who worshiped Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) could wear such metal armors without penalty, but it isn't explained why. Is it a gift from the divine, or is the restriction more psychosomatic? Even the editions with a rule for everything still left some things up to interpretation.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the scimitar proficiency was a relic of some good old-fashioned prejudice. The sickle may come from the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe, and scimitars are vaguely larger versions of them in the sense that both have curved blades. The idea that scimitars are from cultures and regions which have nothing to do with the Celts simply didn't matter to those writers. Scimitars have since also come to be associated with elves, and elves have a fey connection as well. It's not all meant to be representative of the real world, and D&D has very much evolved from a veritable kitchen sink full of inspirations.
As for working leather, you can do the tanning process with lime (crushed limestone, a sedimentary rock) and urine. It doesn't take the fires of industry. You aren't heating iron to unnatural temperatures. Lava and Magma have lower temperatures of around 700°C and reach upper temperatures around 1,200°C and 1,300°C, respectively. Working iron requires going even hotter than that: 1,370°C. Good luck getting it done with much less.
Like, a shortbow and spear are technology. What matters is how it's used and whether natural materials and processes are followed. Tanning leather is living off the land. Working iron is subjugating the natural world.
I literally came here to comment that the *spirit* of the taboo against metal armor is likely intended to be specifically iron armor, and that is how I run it at my table: druids find iron armor unpleasant, generally, though they can wear mithril, dragon scale, and generally anything that isn't iron or steel.
But ultimately, this is a world-building detail best worked out between DM and player.
Agree there’s no taboo against druids wearing scale mail and mithril. IMO it’s presumptuous to even claim “(all) druids find armor unpleasant”. PCs can honor the taboo to any extent they’d like, if at all. I’m really (really) interested in the Warden primal order option included in the UA that gives druids access to martial weapons. For the Warden, who will be mixing it up in melee, some (eg half) metal armor seems logical, if not necessary.
Thankfully, based on the UA, the 50 year old metal armor taboo appears to be going the way of the dustbin of DnD history.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Agree there’s no taboo against druids wearing scale mail and mithril. IMO it’s presumptuous to even claim “(all) druids find armor unpleasant”. PCs can honor the taboo to any extent they’d like, if at all. I’m really (really) interested in the Warden primal order option included in the UA that gives druids access to martial weapons. For the Warden, who will be mixing it up in melee, some (eg half) metal armor seems logical, if not necessary.
Thankfully, based on the UA, the 50 year old metal armor taboo appears to be going the way of the dustbin of DnD history.
It's the DM's prerogative to set the world. You don't get to argue that point, and if you disagree with them so vehemently, you can stand from the table and take your character elsewhere.
Agree there’s no taboo against druids wearing scale mail and mithril. IMO it’s presumptuous to even claim “(all) druids find armor unpleasant”. PCs can honor the taboo to any extent they’d like, if at all. I’m really (really) interested in the Warden primal order option included in the UA that gives druids access to martial weapons. For the Warden, who will be mixing it up in melee, some (eg half) metal armor seems logical, if not necessary.
Thankfully, based on the UA, the 50 year old metal armor taboo appears to be going the way of the dustbin of DnD history.
Whether there is a taboo against druids wearing scale mail or mithral is up to the DM.
Historically scale mail in Europe was made out of metal though some places like Korea and Japan would use leather. It is up to the DM to decide whether scale mail in his world is all metal. all none leather or whether both are used. Mithral is also known as truemetal so again it is up to the DM to decide whether this is is included in the "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"
I actually find it sad the way the game has moved away from roleplay towards mechanics. I take "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" as written, to mean exactly what it says, but many players want their character to be an exception and create a metal armor clad druid, this causes tension with a DM who thinks differently. It was obvious something had to change but I would have preferred something along the lines of "Druids can not druid spells while wearing medium or heavy armor" and have a few magic armors available that ignore this restriction. This would make it clear what a druid can and can not do. The One D&D UA take a lot of the flavor of druids away and like any other spellcaster they can just get armor proficiency through their race a feat or a multi class dip.
my bad for being unclear: I meant dragonscale mail
As for the taboo, so many things have changed in DnD in the last 50 years: races (you can play a djinii or vampire!), there are no rules about alignments and classes anymore, new classes, new subclasses and feats have been added that give PCs access to spells on the spell lists of other classes, giving Clerics access to all martial weapons, and there's a Wizard subclass that can use a sword (1-handed melee weapon) (Bladesinger), etc. Allowing druids to wear some metal armor does not break the game, given these changes.
IMO the real concern is people who want to make their PCs OP, which there are many ways to do. And there are many ways for DMs to manage this.
I do agree it is badly writing because many players like to play contrary characters and a druid that does something that druids "won't" can be enticing to them. I didn't say "option 3" was a good solution only that it was consistent with the rules.
However "can't" also takes away player agency. If a player wants their barbarian/druid who casts spell while raging if the DM says they can not are they removing player agency? If a player has a concept of playing Dumbo, a flying Loxoden, in the AL most people would say they can't (at least until they get access to the fly spell or a magic item that allows flying). Player agency only works within the rules of the game.
The game has "hard" rules like barbarians can not cast spells while raging and "soft" rules like a character will not wear armor they are not proficient in because any benefits of wearing that armor are far outweighed by the fact that "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spell. The rules don't make it clear which is the case for "druids will not wear metal armor", they should have either said that druids can not wear metal armor, or specified the consequences of them doing so. In a non-AL game I would probably rule the consequences are the same as not being proficient. You could argue that because the rules don't specify why druids wont wear metal armor and therefore in the absence of a rule an AL DM can decide the consequence but that would lead to a very different experence for the druid every game they played.
I frankly don’t know where the idea came from that GMs don’t tell players what to play. They absolutely do by choosing the setting. You aren’t going to play a Russian cosmonaut in the Forgotten Realms or a Superhero in Ravenloft.
Whether or not Druids where metal armor is a setting feature.
Again, this is really disingenuous. You cannot play a Russian Cosmonaut in D&D because Russia and (barring Spelljammer) space travel don't exist. Druids exist. Metal armors exist. How is it a setting feature saying that every single person in this particular group makes this exact same choice.
And honestly, you could absolutely play a Russian Cosmonaut that was pulled through a wormhole on his last mission that landed him in the Forgotten Realms. Make him an Artificer as his technology all looks like magic to the people of the Forgotten Realms. (his Walkie Talkie is just Sending Stones, his helmet and oxygen tank are just the Aquatic Adaptation of Alter Self, etc.)
"Can't" in the rules always has a reason/actual rule with it. A PC can absolutely choose to play a Wizard/Barbarian multicass (I have a friend who has done this). They can absolutely choose to Rage while concentrating on a spell. The result of this is that concentration drops. Heck, they can even choose to take the Cast a Spell action while Raging, but nothing will happen. You're ruling would be more akin to telling that Wiz/Barb that he cannot choose to Rage while he has concentration up because a Wizard wouldn't choose to drop concentration like that.
The issue is that it's not a rule; it has no consequences. The only way to adjudicate this is to either homebrew a consequence (which is not allowed in AL) or making the decision for the player what their character does (which flies in the face of the How to Play section of the PHB). The game is bound by the rules, which determine what happens when a PC chooses to do something. There should never be an instance where the DM tells the player that they are not allowed to make a choice. That is the fundamental core of D&D.
Something called “Druids” exist in the setting if the GM says it does. Exactly what that thing is (including whether Druids can wear metal armor) is up to the GM.
The GM controls the setting. That includes classes. For example,, in many campaigns monks aren’t monastics.
Really, Adventurer’s League is the worst thing that ever happened to DnD. It creates a sense of unearned entitlement in some players.
Now you're being really, REALLY disingenuous. Druids exist because they are part of the PHB, the very core-iest core rules of the game. A DM is well within his right to ban any class from his game, but that is not RAW, that is homebrew. The DM is also well within his rights to say that, no Fighters don't get three attacks at level 11, but again, this is homebrew. There is not a single published adventure that bans specific classes (or even races if memory serves).
But we are not talking about homebrew right now, we're talking RAW. RAW, the PHB is making a choice for a player, but there is nothing that happens if the player makes a different choice. So the RAW of the PHB is self contradicting in that in one area it says that the player makes choices for their PC, but the Druid section says, "YOU MUST ALWAYS MAKE THIS CHOICE!"
If the intent was for Druids not to be proficient with metal armor, there has been plenty of time since the nearly 10 years that the PHB has been out for an errata to take place. From a lore/roleplaying perspective, it seems very odd that Druids will only wear something that was once living. Metal armor is the only thing (aside from stone, but that is really impractical) that can be made into armor/clothing that has never been alive.
So CAN Druids wear metal armor? The PHB leaves us with a big shrug and no good way for a DM to adjudicate.
This is like listening to a Southern Baptist and Pentecostal arguing over what is RAW in the Bible. I. Will no longer contribute to this insanity and deeply regret my part in creating it.
I think this has been a very illuminating discussion on differing DMing styles and the way those differences will impact the application and enforcement of the rules of the game. It seems that asking the DM about being a metal-wearing druid is a really good litmus test to measure the quality of a potential DM. Some will say yes, some will say no with good table-specific reasons why they are saying no, some will seek to argue with players, and some still will outright kick players for wanting it. Best to know what you are getting in session 0.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Just curious: for those of you who are in favor of druids wearing armor (and this appears to be where things are going with UA8), how do you feel about the weapons limits of the druid class?
Weapons: Clubs, daggers, darts, javelins, maces, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, slings, spears
Do you want to see the druid weapon options expanded?
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
Good question. It has honestly never come up at my tables. I don't have any feelings one way or another but if a player really wanted to be proficient in something else, I probably would just let them have it. If they envision a druid whose weapon of choice was a longsword, I don't know that it makes any real difference for base attacks. The limitation on Shillelagh is beyond the scope of weapon proficiency.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.
Having a ranged option that's not totally terrible, such as a shortbow or light crossbow, would be nice at very low levels, but it stops being a relevant concern quite fast.
I think the weapon selection is fine. They get club and quarterstaff pretty much solely for Shillelagh as almost all of the rest are finesse. I don't know that I have ever seen a Druid using a weapon outside of Shillelagh as that would require Str on top of high Wis, Con, and Dex.
And any Druid is welcome to choose to use any weapon. They just wouldn't get PB if they're not proficient.
On the topic of weapons I get the feeling that all DMs who say druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) wear metals armour should also say that druids can't (or won't or shouldn't, ect.) use scimitars, sickles, daggers, javelins and maces either, unless they are made of wood XD.
Making leather or hide armour and working wood does require a certain level of technological advancement, it's not more natural than working metal, only more primitive. IMO if you don't let your druid players wear metal for role reason you should just have them run around naked, as any form of clothing or armour is just as unnatural...I mean it's not like metal armour is being artificially created in a lab, it's made of all natural materials.
You might say that creating metal represents domination over nature, because of the was you need to work ores and forge, which in a way corrupts it, or whatever...but I'd argue that treating leather is no more natural either.
What matters is buying into the conceit of the fiction. Unfortunately, I think the design team took too much for granted when drafting the 2014 edition. Some rules are half-baked, and some useful bits of lore are missing. It wasn't written for new players, but it exploded in popularity. Ergo, many exchanges like this are likely growing pains.
For example, power sources change from edition to edition. Druids have drawn their magic from divine, fey, and primal sources in the past. Fey and iron do not get along. Druids, for a time, didn't wear metal made from iron (including steel) because it interfered with their ability to wield magic. But the iron and steel weapons could still be effective against rogue fey creatures, so they weren't discarded. That said, later editions began to make exceptions. Druids in 3.X who worshiped Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) could wear such metal armors without penalty, but it isn't explained why. Is it a gift from the divine, or is the restriction more psychosomatic? Even the editions with a rule for everything still left some things up to interpretation.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the scimitar proficiency was a relic of some good old-fashioned prejudice. The sickle may come from the Ritual of Oak and Mistletoe, and scimitars are vaguely larger versions of them in the sense that both have curved blades. The idea that scimitars are from cultures and regions which have nothing to do with the Celts simply didn't matter to those writers. Scimitars have since also come to be associated with elves, and elves have a fey connection as well. It's not all meant to be representative of the real world, and D&D has very much evolved from a veritable kitchen sink full of inspirations.
As for working leather, you can do the tanning process with lime (crushed limestone, a sedimentary rock) and urine. It doesn't take the fires of industry. You aren't heating iron to unnatural temperatures. Lava and Magma have lower temperatures of around 700°C and reach upper temperatures around 1,200°C and 1,300°C, respectively. Working iron requires going even hotter than that: 1,370°C. Good luck getting it done with much less.
Like, a shortbow and spear are technology. What matters is how it's used and whether natural materials and processes are followed. Tanning leather is living off the land. Working iron is subjugating the natural world.
I literally came here to comment that the *spirit* of the taboo against metal armor is likely intended to be specifically iron armor, and that is how I run it at my table: druids find iron armor unpleasant, generally, though they can wear mithril, dragon scale, and generally anything that isn't iron or steel.
But ultimately, this is a world-building detail best worked out between DM and player.
Agree there’s no taboo against druids wearing scale mail and mithril. IMO it’s presumptuous to even claim “(all) druids find armor unpleasant”. PCs can honor the taboo to any extent they’d like, if at all. I’m really (really) interested in the Warden primal order option included in the UA that gives druids access to martial weapons. For the Warden, who will be mixing it up in melee, some (eg half) metal armor seems logical, if not necessary.
Thankfully, based on the UA, the 50 year old metal armor taboo appears to be going the way of the dustbin of DnD history.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.
It's the DM's prerogative to set the world. You don't get to argue that point, and if you disagree with them so vehemently, you can stand from the table and take your character elsewhere.
Whether there is a taboo against druids wearing scale mail or mithral is up to the DM.
Historically scale mail in Europe was made out of metal though some places like Korea and Japan would use leather. It is up to the DM to decide whether scale mail in his world is all metal. all none leather or whether both are used. Mithral is also known as truemetal so again it is up to the DM to decide whether this is is included in the "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"
I actually find it sad the way the game has moved away from roleplay towards mechanics. I take "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" as written, to mean exactly what it says, but many players want their character to be an exception and create a metal armor clad druid, this causes tension with a DM who thinks differently. It was obvious something had to change but I would have preferred something along the lines of "Druids can not druid spells while wearing medium or heavy armor" and have a few magic armors available that ignore this restriction. This would make it clear what a druid can and can not do. The One D&D UA take a lot of the flavor of druids away and like any other spellcaster they can just get armor proficiency through their race a feat or a multi class dip.
my bad for being unclear: I meant dragon scale mail
As for the taboo, so many things have changed in DnD in the last 50 years: races (you can play a djinii or vampire!), there are no rules about alignments and classes anymore, new classes, new subclasses and feats have been added that give PCs access to spells on the spell lists of other classes, giving Clerics access to all martial weapons, and there's a Wizard subclass that can use a sword (1-handed melee weapon) (Bladesinger), etc. Allowing druids to wear some metal armor does not break the game, given these changes.
IMO the real concern is people who want to make their PCs OP, which there are many ways to do. And there are many ways for DMs to manage this.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in the last year.