Except that RAW they will not wear metal armour. The rules say "They choose not to wear it" not "you can choose not to wear it." By using "they", the writers have made the choice for your character in that (all) Druids will not wear metal armour.
Again, it's not a big deal. Your DM can waive the requirement that your Druid choose not to wear metal armour. This is really such a non-issue.
They have Proficiency in all Light and Medium armor, including Metal armors. As I have already covered, the statement in the proficiency list for druids is not explicit prohibition.
Sure, but they won't wear them. :D
Here ya go, bud. Straight from the Sage Advice Compendium. I highlighted all the relevant bits. The stuff that supports your "it's a choice" argument but also proves us right. RAW a Druid will not wear metal armour. A Druid, by nature of being a Druid, chooses not to. A choice that is forcibly made for Druids by the rules. You may not agree with the rules making a choice for you, but they do.
If you feel strongly about it, talk to your DM. They have final say over what goes on at their table, not the book(s).
The only thing you have done is proven my point. RAW, they can wear metal armor but in game they just choose not to. It isn't a rule, it is flavor. SAC makes this explicitly clear. It does not say that Druids don't have proficiency in metal armor, nor does it clarify the statement there as explicit prohibition.
This SAC answer means nothing for this conversation, and people need to read the thread before bringing this up again.
Maybe I wasn't clear before.
Nobody has proficiency in metal armor. Rather, they have proficiency with classes of armor that can be made of metal, but doesn't have to be.
Druids will not wear metal armor. They can, however, wear armor made of unconventional materials.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
Except that RAW they will not wear metal armour. The rules say "They choose not to wear it" not "you can choose not to wear it." By using "they", the writers have made the choice for your character in that (all) Druids will not wear metal armour.
Again, it's not a big deal. Your DM can waive the requirement that your Druid choose not to wear metal armour. This is really such a non-issue.
Once again, this is the realm of RP, not Rules. RAW they can wear all Medium and Light armor. That is it. The will not refers to typical druids, but does not prohibit a druid from wearing said metal armor RAW. And a "non-issue"? You and literally everyone else arguing a position similar to yours is making up a rule that doesn't exist.
You are once again conflating Flavor for Rules. They are not the same.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
From the Sage Advice, this is a story element, not a game mechanic restriction. A druid can perform taboo and still be a druid while wearing armor by the rules provided. The issue becomes overcoming DM biases and entrenched ideas on what a druid should be. Druids typically wear leathers and other non-metal materials to protect themselves because of a philosophy regarding civilization and what metal armor represents. They are not required, from a game mechanic standpoint, to refuse metal armor. You can have a druid that doesn't share a typical druid's view on civilization and still be operating within the rules.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
I love that we have an actual entry in official sage advice clarifying the metal armor rules and this still continues.
That ruling clearly says: 1. Druids will not wear metal armor, not because they don't know how (proficiency), but because of their identity. This is one of the few forced role playing rules in 5e (Cleric and Paladin being the others). In particular the paladin is called out for how character choices are forced on it as well. 2. The historical reason and role playing reasons behind this rule. 3. This rule provides clarification of the list: Leather, Studded Leather, Hide AND other light/medium armor made from other materials (example used scale mail). 4. Provides remedy if you want to deviate from these story elements which is really the same as any homebrew you wish to run: Clear it with your DM first.
If you don't like this rule that is fine. I have a number of 5e rules I don't like and so does nearly every table. If you want it to be different in the future make sure you voice your concerns during the One D&D process. But the whole point of the official sage advice is clarifying situations like this. It has. Rather than petty bickering I would be far more interested in various approaches to add metal armor on druid into your game. Character concepts, subclasses, what limitations you put on it, etc.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
From the Sage Advice, this is a story element, not a game mechanic restriction. A druid can perform taboo and still be a druid while wearing armor by the rules provided. The issue becomes overcoming DM biases and entrenched ideas on what a druid should be. Druids typically wear leathers and other non-metal materials to protect themselves because of a philosophy regarding civilization and what metal armor represents. They are not required, from a game mechanic standpoint, to refuse metal armor. You can have a druid that doesn't share a typical druid's view on civilization and still be operating within the rules.
Yes, it's a story element. If you feel that strongly about throwing aside the story and class identity, you can talk with your DM about it.
Or you can go questing for stuff to make dope armor with. Or your DM can just award cool stuff that's obviously intended for you.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
It is irrelevant, because even if there are non-metal equivalents that does not change the fact that druids are still proficient in the metal versions as well.
This whole "class identity" and "class story" point is irrelevant to the core argument of this thread. The core argument of the thread is whether RAW, can druids wear metal armor?
You need to take your feelings, beliefs, stereotypes, and biases of what you think a class should be out of it, since none of those things are important nor relevant to this conversation.
We have already proven that based on the wording of the text in the proficiency list, and based on how the SAC addresses this, that those words are meant to provide a story guideline (not a MECHANICAL RULE) for players that play druids. They aren't there to say that druids don't have proficiency in armor that has metal in it, just that druids don't typically wear metal armor. Druids aren't mechanically punished for wearing metal armor like in 3.X where they would lose the ability to use druid abilities for 24 hours after putting it on, nor are they explicitly not proficient in it, which would prevent them from casting spells. (You also seem to have a misconception about what I am saying with this point. Making them not proficient in Metal armor would not preclude them from the exotic material medium armor options, it would preclude them from the standard options. Which is why I continue to say that you bringing up the exotic material versions of those armors is irrelevant.)
If you want to enforce "class identity" or "class story" be my guess (it's your table), but at the end of the day that is once again just another house rule, and isn't RAW.
Amazing. Every word of what you just typed was wrong.
Class identity is a core part of this discussion, because the title, "Why are druids described as being ok wearing studded leather armor?," correctly identifies this as being a choice, and we are who we choose to be: in both figurative and literal senses.
My perspective is not about what I think the class should be, so you don't need to pretend my, "feelings, beliefs, stereotypes, and biases," have anything to do with this.
You cannot seriously invoke the SAC and its answer to the question, which makes multiple references to class identity and story, even going so far as to call it a taboo, and say this discussion is rooted solely in mechanics.
It's actually mind-boggling how little you comprehend, here. The cognitive dissonance is strong with you.
Seriously, if you're going to turn to the SAC for your answer, then use the entire answer. Stop gnashing your teeth and talk to your DM like an adult. They have the final say, not you.
Once again, mechanically and RAW, you are wrong in your interpretation.
Druids can wear metal armor since they are proficient in them and there is no penalty for doing so.
That is it. The SAC definitively defines it as story. Which means it becomes RP. Which means it comes down to the player. Sure the player may explain to the DM that his druid is different from other druids and has no qualms about wearing metal, but unless the DM specifically house rules it to not be allowed, they aren't breaking any of the mechanical rules of the game.
(And yes, unless the rules (RAW or house rules) specifically and mechanically impose a reason for me to RP in a certain way, I will choose what I want to do when I RP.)
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
From the Sage Advice, this is a story element, not a game mechanic restriction. A druid can perform taboo and still be a druid while wearing armor by the rules provided. The issue becomes overcoming DM biases and entrenched ideas on what a druid should be. Druids typically wear leathers and other non-metal materials to protect themselves because of a philosophy regarding civilization and what metal armor represents. They are not required, from a game mechanic standpoint, to refuse metal armor. You can have a druid that doesn't share a typical druid's view on civilization and still be operating within the rules.
Yes, it's a story element. If you feel that strongly about throwing aside the story and class identity, you can talk with your DM about it.
Or you can go questing for stuff to make dope armor with. Or your DM can just award cool stuff that's obviously intended for you.
Why do you all hate a cool story?
The simple fact of the matter is while it is entirely true that some DMs are awful and should be avoided when they become so entrenched in their ideas of what 'class identify' should be that they begin to infringe on the fun of the players, it should not be necessary to get permission from your DM to play against 'class identity' as long as it is still within the rules. Informing the DM really is only necessary to allow them to provide an appropriate response in-game, such as the player druid being excommunicated or maybe a druid refusing to provide necessary information. A druid wearing metal armor is taboo and in some campaigns that will matter more than others.
I already stated, before even responding to you, that as a DM I would be fine with the druid players using metal or using other materials to accomplish the same effect. See below, since you may have missed the post. You are presenting nothing that I myself did not already state before, but you are presenting that as if it is necessary to remain within the rules of the game. It is not. Are you sure that I am the one who feels 'strongly' on this topic? I have only been here for a few days. You have been arguing in this thread for literally years.
Studded leather armor does not have to be studded with metal. It could just as easily be studded with rocks or bone for all I care. Also, I have yet to sit at a table where there isn’t at least one player bucking trends with their PC. If they want to have their druid don metal armor, why not? They have proficiency with weapons made of metal.
Once again, mechanically and RAW, you are wrong in your interpretation.
Druids can wear metal armor since they are proficient in them and there is no penalty for doing so.
That is it. The SAC definitively defines it as story. Which means it becomes RP. Which means it comes down to the player. Sure the player may explain to the DM that his druid is different from other druids and has no qualms about wearing metal, but unless the DM specifically house rules it to not be allowed, they aren't breaking any of the mechanical rules of the game.
(And yes, unless the rules (RAW or house rules) specifically and mechanically impose a reason for me to RP in a certain way, I will choose what I want to do when I RP.)
And the player, by virtue of having read the class description, has chosen to play that class story.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
From the Sage Advice, this is a story element, not a game mechanic restriction. A druid can perform taboo and still be a druid while wearing armor by the rules provided. The issue becomes overcoming DM biases and entrenched ideas on what a druid should be. Druids typically wear leathers and other non-metal materials to protect themselves because of a philosophy regarding civilization and what metal armor represents. They are not required, from a game mechanic standpoint, to refuse metal armor. You can have a druid that doesn't share a typical druid's view on civilization and still be operating within the rules.
Yes, it's a story element. If you feel that strongly about throwing aside the story and class identity, you can talk with your DM about it.
Or you can go questing for stuff to make dope armor with. Or your DM can just award cool stuff that's obviously intended for you.
Why do you all hate a cool story?
The simple fact of the matter is while it is entirely true that some DMs are awful and should be avoided when they become so entrenched in their ideas of what 'class identify' should be that they begin to infringe on the fun of the players, it should not be necessary to get permission from your DM to play against 'class identity' as long as it is still within the rules. Informing the DM really is only necessary to allow them to provide an appropriate response in-game, such as the player druid being excommunicated or maybe a druid refusing to provide necessary information. A druid wearing metal armor is taboo and in some campaigns that will matter more than others.
I already stated, before even responding to you, that as a DM I would be fine with the druid players using metal or using other materials to accomplish the same effect. See below, since you may have missed the post. You are presenting nothing that I myself did not already state before, but you are presenting that as if it is necessary to remain within the rules of the game. It is not. Are you sure that I am the one who feels 'strongly' on this topic? I have only been here for a few days. You have been arguing in this thread for literally years.
Studded leather armor does not have to be studded with metal. It could just as easily be studded with rocks or bone for all I care. Also, I have yet to sit at a table where there isn’t at least one player bucking trends with their PC. If they want to have their druid don metal armor, why not? They have proficiency with weapons made of metal.
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
That's a lot of words when you could simply say, "If the DM doesn't let me do as I wish, they're terrible and they should feel bad."
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
That's a lot of words when you could simply say, "If the DM doesn't let me do as I wish, they're terrible and they should feel bad."
You are talking to the DM, friend. I am sorry that the concept of a DM taking an active interest in player fun is so novel to you. Rather, I am sorry for your players.
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
That's a lot of words when you could simply say, "If the DM doesn't let me do as I wish, they're terrible and they should feel bad."
You are talking to the DM, friend. I am sorry that the concept of a DM taking an active interest in player fun is so novel to you. Rather, I am sorry for your players.
Is that supposed to make me feel bad? You've been arguing in circles.
If you have zero problem with the player and the DM having the conversation, then fine. They can work together to establish a druidic order where metal armor isn't taboo. General rules do have exceptions. By the same token, in order for the exception to exist the general rule must also be true. So, it's either a rule or it isn't.
If it's not a rule, then there's no conversation to be had. You, and your players, can ignore most of the answer from the SAC that you invoked because the answer is irrelevant. The players can just do whatever the hell they want, and damn the consequences. But if they need to have a conversation, because it is a general taboo, because story, then the answer holds in its entirety. You're picking and choosing for your own convenience, and you refuse to actually commit to one interpretation. You're treating it as Schrödinger's Rule, and that's bull hockey.
So, yes, your answers have lacked integrity. As a DM, I expect better of you. The last thing any player should want is someone capriciously playing referee.
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
That's a lot of words when you could simply say, "If the DM doesn't let me do as I wish, they're terrible and they should feel bad."
You are talking to the DM, friend. I am sorry that the concept of a DM taking an active interest in player fun is so novel to you. Rather, I am sorry for your players.
Is that supposed to make me feel bad? You've been arguing in circles.
If you have zero problem with the player and the DM having the conversation, then fine. They can work together to establish a druidic order where metal armor isn't taboo. General rules do have exceptions. By the same token, in order for the exception to exist the general rule must also be true. So, it's either a rule or it isn't.
If it's not a rule, then there's no conversation to be had. You, and your players, can ignore most of the answer from the SAC that you invoked because the answer is irrelevant. The players can just do whatever the hell they want, and damn the consequences. But if they need to have a conversation, because it is a general taboo, because story, then the answer holds in its entirety. You're picking and choosing for your own convenience, and you refuse to actually commit to one interpretation. You're treating it as Schrödinger's Rule, and that's bull hockey.
So, yes, your answers have lacked integrity. As a DM, I expect better of you. The last thing any player should want is someone capriciously playing referee.
From a definitional standpoint, you do not know what 'arguing in circles' even means. Arguing in circles means arguments that go around and around without ever being resolved. Who has been arguing in this thread for three years without finding resolution, me or you?🤔
Even that example is not necessary. There can be an individual that does not adhere to the established norm. This seems to be a specific problem for you and one that you continually ignore to make your absurd and player apathetic arguments. A class identity issue that has no basis in the mechanics of the game is therefore campaign specific. Who was the person that said that? Me. Who was the person who had a problem with that statement? You. I believe I have said that wearing metal armor is typically seen as taboo in almost every post I have made here, yet you are still flailing your arms about 'class identity' and how it must be respected else the entire illusion of the game collapse and the reality of a handful of people sitting around a table arguing about druids is exposed. Maybe this topic is too much for you. I have literally never seen someone camp an argument for three years in my life to spend it projecting onto others. Big yikes.
Yes, a conversation is generally necessary at character creation so that the DM knows how to have the environment respond. A rogue that refuses to steal is playing against type. A DM would likely appreciate knowing this about the character and why if the player has thought that far about it. A cleric that does not worship a deity is also playing against type and would certainly be good to know from a DM standpoint. Not because they must do these things they wish to not do, but because I want to help them accomplish those things. Again, player focused. Try it.
I find it ironic that you accuse others of ignoring the rules when the rules very clearly state that a druid can wear armor made of metal and that they collectively choose not to. If druids choose not to, then most people can reach the logical conclusion that players can also make a choice to wear it. Do you understand how decision-making works?
I think I have already told you that we are in agreement that a conversation with the DM is a good idea. Yet you argue this point still. Again, please try reading the arguments you are fighting so passionately against. I think there is a bit too much emotion in your post. Again, maybe you are the one that 'feels strongly' about this topic. I recommend a break.
My answers have been consistent the entire time. I believe that you are so emotionally compromised, you just miss a lot of critical details, such as when I agreed that a conversation with the DM is a good idea. It fulfills a social contract that all players have with the DM, druid or not. But please, continue to ignore the points made that you cannot adequately deal with. It is totally not obvious that you are tilting at windmills. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Except that RAW they will not wear metal armour. The rules say "They choose not to wear it" not "you can choose not to wear it." By using "they", the writers have made the choice for your character in that (all) Druids will not wear metal armour.
Again, it's not a big deal. Your DM can waive the requirement that your Druid choose not to wear metal armour. This is really such a non-issue.
Maybe I wasn't clear before.
Nobody has proficiency in metal armor. Rather, they have proficiency with classes of armor that can be made of metal, but doesn't have to be.
Druids will not wear metal armor. They can, however, wear armor made of unconventional materials.
They have proficiency in ALL LIGHT AND MEDIUM ARMOR . If they didn't want players to wear metal armor as a druid then they shouldn't have proficiency in them. The text should say, Druids do not have proficiency in metal armor. If they aren't proficient in that class of armor, then there are mechanical penalties, otherwise all the "will not" does is imply flavor, and THAT IS IT.
There is no argument. The SAC does not support the idea that they cannot wear metal armor RAW. Just that the text written there is flavor and NOTHING MORE.
Once again, this is the realm of RP, not Rules. RAW they can wear all Medium and Light armor. That is it. The will not refers to typical druids, but does not prohibit a druid from wearing said metal armor RAW. And a "non-issue"? You and literally everyone else arguing a position similar to yours is making up a rule that doesn't exist.
You are once again conflating Flavor for Rules. They are not the same.
There are medium armors, including scale mail, breastplate, and half plate, not made with metal.
You're welcome.
From the Sage Advice, this is a story element, not a game mechanic restriction. A druid can perform taboo and still be a druid while wearing armor by the rules provided. The issue becomes overcoming DM biases and entrenched ideas on what a druid should be. Druids typically wear leathers and other non-metal materials to protect themselves because of a philosophy regarding civilization and what metal armor represents. They are not required, from a game mechanic standpoint, to refuse metal armor. You can have a druid that doesn't share a typical druid's view on civilization and still be operating within the rules.
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
This is irrelevant. Please stop bringing this up as if it means anything to this conversation.
I love that we have an actual entry in official sage advice clarifying the metal armor rules and this still continues.
That ruling clearly says:
1. Druids will not wear metal armor, not because they don't know how (proficiency), but because of their identity. This is one of the few forced role playing rules in 5e (Cleric and Paladin being the others). In particular the paladin is called out for how character choices are forced on it as well.
2. The historical reason and role playing reasons behind this rule.
3. This rule provides clarification of the list: Leather, Studded Leather, Hide AND other light/medium armor made from other materials (example used scale mail).
4. Provides remedy if you want to deviate from these story elements which is really the same as any homebrew you wish to run: Clear it with your DM first.
If you don't like this rule that is fine. I have a number of 5e rules I don't like and so does nearly every table. If you want it to be different in the future make sure you voice your concerns during the One D&D process. But the whole point of the official sage advice is clarifying situations like this. It has. Rather than petty bickering I would be far more interested in various approaches to add metal armor on druid into your game. Character concepts, subclasses, what limitations you put on it, etc.
Yes, it's a story element. If you feel that strongly about throwing aside the story and class identity, you can talk with your DM about it.
Or you can go questing for stuff to make dope armor with. Or your DM can just award cool stuff that's obviously intended for you.
Why do you all hate a cool story?
It's wholly relevant. You can also read the post I responded to a little further up this one.
Do you want a cool story and strong class identity, or do you want to be basic and just throw down a purse of gold?
It is irrelevant, because even if there are non-metal equivalents that does not change the fact that druids are still proficient in the metal versions as well.
This whole "class identity" and "class story" point is irrelevant to the core argument of this thread. The core argument of the thread is whether RAW, can druids wear metal armor?
You need to take your feelings, beliefs, stereotypes, and biases of what you think a class should be out of it, since none of those things are important nor relevant to this conversation.
We have already proven that based on the wording of the text in the proficiency list, and based on how the SAC addresses this, that those words are meant to provide a story guideline (not a MECHANICAL RULE) for players that play druids. They aren't there to say that druids don't have proficiency in armor that has metal in it, just that druids don't typically wear metal armor. Druids aren't mechanically punished for wearing metal armor like in 3.X where they would lose the ability to use druid abilities for 24 hours after putting it on, nor are they explicitly not proficient in it, which would prevent them from casting spells. (You also seem to have a misconception about what I am saying with this point. Making them not proficient in Metal armor would not preclude them from the exotic material medium armor options, it would preclude them from the standard options. Which is why I continue to say that you bringing up the exotic material versions of those armors is irrelevant.)
If you want to enforce "class identity" or "class story" be my guess (it's your table), but at the end of the day that is once again just another house rule, and isn't RAW.
Amazing. Every word of what you just typed was wrong.
It's actually mind-boggling how little you comprehend, here. The cognitive dissonance is strong with you.
Seriously, if you're going to turn to the SAC for your answer, then use the entire answer. Stop gnashing your teeth and talk to your DM like an adult. They have the final say, not you.
Once again, mechanically and RAW, you are wrong in your interpretation.
Druids can wear metal armor since they are proficient in them and there is no penalty for doing so.
That is it. The SAC definitively defines it as story. Which means it becomes RP. Which means it comes down to the player. Sure the player may explain to the DM that his druid is different from other druids and has no qualms about wearing metal, but unless the DM specifically house rules it to not be allowed, they aren't breaking any of the mechanical rules of the game.
(And yes, unless the rules (RAW or house rules) specifically and mechanically impose a reason for me to RP in a certain way, I will choose what I want to do when I RP.)
The simple fact of the matter is while it is entirely true that some DMs are awful and should be avoided when they become so entrenched in their ideas of what 'class identify' should be that they begin to infringe on the fun of the players, it should not be necessary to get permission from your DM to play against 'class identity' as long as it is still within the rules. Informing the DM really is only necessary to allow them to provide an appropriate response in-game, such as the player druid being excommunicated or maybe a druid refusing to provide necessary information. A druid wearing metal armor is taboo and in some campaigns that will matter more than others.
I already stated, before even responding to you, that as a DM I would be fine with the druid players using metal or using other materials to accomplish the same effect. See below, since you may have missed the post. You are presenting nothing that I myself did not already state before, but you are presenting that as if it is necessary to remain within the rules of the game. It is not. Are you sure that I am the one who feels 'strongly' on this topic? I have only been here for a few days. You have been arguing in this thread for literally years.
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
And the player, by virtue of having read the class description, has chosen to play that class story.
It's called informed consent, bucko.
So you link to the SAC and conveniently ignore that the player should be taking with the DM about departing from their class' story? It's literally in the answer, and you're just pretending it doesn't count?
Is it too much to ask for a little integrity?
You are speaking past me on this to argue a point that is not even being made by me. A wonderful time to ask for integrity, really. We are in agreement that talks should happen with the DM, but this is done for literally any player decision made at character creation. You do this when you make a rogue that is rogue-like, a barbarian that is bard-like, or cleric that is druid-like. So too should you do this for a druid. The answer you are referring to is talking about story elements. Story elements are not rules-based, but campaign-based. That is why discussions with the DM is encouraged; for story purposes. The DM does have final say and as I said before, there are a lot of awful DMs out there that put their own ideas about the way things should be above the player's desire to play against type. You DM the way you want to. I will try to help my players have fun though.
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
That's a lot of words when you could simply say, "If the DM doesn't let me do as I wish, they're terrible and they should feel bad."
You are talking to the DM, friend. I am sorry that the concept of a DM taking an active interest in player fun is so novel to you. Rather, I am sorry for your players.
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
Is that supposed to make me feel bad? You've been arguing in circles.
If you have zero problem with the player and the DM having the conversation, then fine. They can work together to establish a druidic order where metal armor isn't taboo. General rules do have exceptions. By the same token, in order for the exception to exist the general rule must also be true. So, it's either a rule or it isn't.
If it's not a rule, then there's no conversation to be had. You, and your players, can ignore most of the answer from the SAC that you invoked because the answer is irrelevant. The players can just do whatever the hell they want, and damn the consequences. But if they need to have a conversation, because it is a general taboo, because story, then the answer holds in its entirety. You're picking and choosing for your own convenience, and you refuse to actually commit to one interpretation. You're treating it as Schrödinger's Rule, and that's bull hockey.
So, yes, your answers have lacked integrity. As a DM, I expect better of you. The last thing any player should want is someone capriciously playing referee.
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