There is no ban on metal armor. No matter how many people fight for or against it. This was a rule in previous editions. To the point that Druids lost their powers for as long as they wore it and for 24 hours after. meaning they could do very little when they had it on. This is no longer an issue but has remained as a tradition of non-consequence.
...
Above and beyond that. There have been distinctions in several editions that even shows up a little bit in 5th edition that talks about how Something that is not primarily made up of metal does not count as made of metal for those kinds of restrictions. Making the issue fairly moot anyway.
Although overall a rather toothless argument (depending mostly on opinion and different games -- 5e is not a previous edition -- rather than the text in the PHB or any advice of the authors on the subject), this is fine as long as your DM is OK with altering your groups use of that text in the Druid section listed under proficiencies with mechanical impact on Druid characters that is plainly stated.
Your mechanical impact in 5e is grey area at best. As mechanically armor is rarely as much of a factor for Druids anyway since many of them shape shift rendering the armor moot and the other half of them are often spell casters which tend to boast little armor and or spell augmentation to their AC's to begin with. So while your trying to knock down what i said. Your argument is fairly toothless as well if you really want to get that way about it. The text does not have to be altered with anything that I said. I just gave previous context and the way things basically stand or can be dealt with either regardless of of Edition or in 5e specifically.
I guess I didn't make myself clear: Ask your DM. That is the entirety of my argument, it is supported by the advice that the authors give, it is the one thing that will let you know if you can do it in the world your DM is using, and it is the only reasonable advice that you can give to any player that wants to change anything about the game that they're playing (fluff or crunch).
This argument has the support of the text on the page, general advice on changes to the game, and specific advice on this topic. It is not based on opinion of the importance of armor to druids, it doesn't simply ignore text that is plainly written, and it is not based on editions whose rules and fluff are not on the page of this edition.
My druid wears studded leather armor. I asked for it a while back and my DM asked arent druids forbidden from wearing it but the rules state a druid would not wear it. However i disagree with the statement as metal in anymore really is still a part of nature and my druid being a Kobold raised by gnomes and other druids might have a different opinion on that. I said that from my perspective my druid would not care. What would wearing metal be a thing they do not do? Makes no sense to me. They can still wield metal weapons, they will still wear jewellry which contains metal. Metal is still a natural element even after forging it is still technically part of nature. I also don't believe that metal would interfere with magic in anyway because clerics and paladins can wear plate armor and still cast spells. So personally I see it as just fluff that was poorly worded. Someone who came up with the idea just had a very strong opinion on it it feels! xD
It really depends on what you interpret studded leather armour to be; in history there isn't really any such thing as "studded" armour, as it'd be completely pointless, yet it has become a fantasy armour trope where it's just a thing for some reason. There are historical armours that look studded but this is because the studs are actually holding metal inner plates in position, the advantage being that because the material goes over the metal, your enemy can't see where the weak points are, and it's cheaper to make than "proper" metal armour, and you can wear it over chainmail. See visby (coat of plates) and brigandine armours.
So if we assume that studded armour represents one of these coat-of-plates type armours, then it's absolutely metal armour and a druid shouldn't really wear it.
However, if you assume that the armour is only studded then presumably the idea is that the studs just add a chance to catch a blade on something harder than the leather parts; in that case you could argue that the studs could be made of ceramic or bone or some other suitably hard material, as it should be no less effective than metal studs would be.
I would however argue that the whole "no metal armour" thing isn't really a hard rule, as it says that druids "will not", not "cannot" wear it, implying it's cultural/ideological rather than it interferes with their abilities. If wildshaping can integrate metal swords etc. then there seems no reason metal armour should be any different.
I would however argue that the whole "no metal armour" thing isn't really a hard rule, as it says that druids "will not", not "cannot" wear it, implying it's cultural/ideological rather than it interferes with their abilities. If wildshaping can integrate metal swords etc. then there seems no reason metal armour should be any different.
This is the part that I always take issue with. "Will not" and "cannot" both mean that they do not. It is not a limitation of the class, but it is still a requirement of the class. Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide - thus creating the issue that this thread is about.
I would however argue that the whole "no metal armour" thing isn't really a hard rule, as it says that druids "will not", not "cannot" wear it, implying it's cultural/ideological rather than it interferes with their abilities. If wildshaping can integrate metal swords etc. then there seems no reason metal armour should be any different.
This is the part that I always take issue with. "Will not" and "cannot" both mean that they do not. It is not a limitation of the class, but it is still a requirement of the class. Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide - thus creating the issue that this thread is about.
No. Will not and cannot are not the same thing. Cannot implies a lack of capability. "I cannot reach that shelf, I am too short." Will not implies a choice. I will not willingingly put my hand on a hot stove."
The problem is that the authors, and they have had many opportunites to clerify via errata, supplied no consequence for what happens when a druid choses to wear metal armor. You dont become an oath breaker, you dont become a fallen druid or lose your powers or any anything else, which makes absolutely no sense as EVERY OTHER CLASS can wear whatever they like and use any item they like and suffer well defined consequences for doing so. Heck, clerics can use any weapon they want now and dont even need a diety.
I pwrsonally think that there should be a consequence but since there isnt, then druids only dont wear metal, until they chose otherwise. There are a lot of rules, or lack of rules in 5E so I just chalk this up to another one where the authors dont want to make another mechanical restriction but held onto the same fluff from previous versions. I wish they would clarify. Id rather have a rule I dont support than the vague and cryptic sage response we have been given on this issue - especially with the direction we are headed with fluidity on other historical race/character ideals.
Sides, my druid worships Mielikki and can wear metal armor. My 3.0 precedent trumps the lack of a formal cannot. 😁
I went back and took a look at 3.5 rules (last version I played) and the language was a druid is PROHIBITED. In other words, the deity told the druid no. If you violated that rule, you lost your powers for 24 hours.
Simple.
The lack of a mechanic and the specific verbiage used (will not vs cannot or prohibited) coupled with no consequence leads me to conclude it is nothing more than choice.
I welcome an errata stating otherwise. Ex-druids needing to atone was an interesting roleplaying option.
3.0/3.5 are not this game. Whatever was in past editions matters exactly as much as what is in a White Wolf product does to this game or what was in the last Starwars movie matters to this game.
There is no consequence for all sorts of things that a player is unable to do in the game. That is a non sequitur. There is no consequence for allowing your wizard to have proficiency in heavy armor because there doesn't need to be. Giving him that free proficiency bypasses all the means that he would need to take to get it in the first place, so none of those consequences matter.
People seem to be mis-reading the implications of the SAC entry on this problem. The SAC text is exactly the advice that the authors of this game give to any player/group that ask if they can change any part of the game, be it rule or fluff. What the SAC entry does not do is in any way say whether the specific limitation is a rule or not. People apparently read this to mean that it isn't a rule.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
And again, to repeat the part that you haven't addressed: Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide, whether it is fluff or a rule or has any mechanical consequences.
And again, to repeat the part that you haven't addressed: Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide, whether it is fluff or a rule or has any mechanical consequences.
Same to ya. Whether you chose to invent a penalty not specifically mentioned RAW does not mean that it must exist for others. Peace.
I would however argue that the whole "no metal armour" thing isn't really a hard rule, as it says that druids "will not", not "cannot" wear it, implying it's cultural/ideological rather than it interferes with their abilities. If wildshaping can integrate metal swords etc. then there seems no reason metal armour should be any different.
This is the part that I always take issue with. "Will not" and "cannot" both mean that they do not. It is not a limitation of the class, but it is still a requirement of the class. Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide - thus creating the issue that this thread is about.
The part that I take issue with is that this is the only class with any kind of "restriction" like it; it's not functional, it's not mechanical, and it's not even justified in lore anymore, this one parenthesis in a proficiency section is the only place that it's even mentioned, and it's set out poorly. Druids are not proficient only in non-metal light and medium armours and shields, they're proficient in them all, yet "will not" wear metal armours, and there are no consequences in the class for doing so anyway (by choice or not).
No other class in the game says "if you do X, you cease to be Y", and neither does Druid; a Druid that is forced into a suit of metal armour doesn't cease to have their Druid abilities, ergo wearing it is a choice and nothing more. The Sage Advice mention of it is worse than useless, as the comparison to vegetarianism is flawed; a vegetarian who eats meat is by definition not a vegetarian, but a druid in metal armour doesn't cease to be a druid, and a druid is never defined as being someone who never wears metal armour. The flippancy of the sage advice frustrates me even more than the weakness of the "rule" in the first place; if it was rules as intended then it should have its own section and justify either why a druid shouldn't wear metal armour, or why they cannot, otherwise it's not worth including at all, as players are perfectly able to decide for themselves if they want to only wear organically grown tea leaves or not.
And the ridiculousness of it really is summed up in the "will not", as that phrasing absolutely matters; it means they aren't supposed to choose to wear metal armour, but if you decide in your background that your druid was forced into a suit of metal armour by drunken druidphobes and can't reach the clasps to undo it, then you've got yourself a perfectly RAW way to have metal armour.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
That is a perfect analogy.
It's not though; a vegetarian is by definition a person who does not eat meat, so eating meat is incompatible with being a vegetarian, that's literally all there is to it. A druid is never defined as being a person that does not wear metal armour; the 5e lore on druids is all about preserving balance, protecting nature etc., and metals are as much a part of the natural order as anything else. There is a lot more to being druid than not wearing metal armour, so wearing it clearly can't (and doesn't) prevent you from being a druid.
The first and last mention of metal armour and druids in the player's handbook is that one parenthesis in the proficiencies section. The worst part about the flippancy of the sage advice on the subject is that they had the opportunity to clarify in absolute terms whether it's just flavour or a hard rule and why, i.e- a consequence such as "wearing metal armour interferes with a druid's connection to nature", so we'd be absolutely clear why it's there, and what you'd be choosing to ignore. But if anything they made the justification of it being a rule even weaker (and it was weak to begin with).
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
That is a perfect analogy.
It's not though; a vegetarian is by definition a person who does not eat meat, so eating meat is incompatible with being a vegetarian, that's literally all there is to it. A druid is never defined as being a person that does not wear metal armour; the 5e lore on druids is all about preserving balance, protecting nature etc., and metals are as much a part of the natural order as anything else. There is a lot more to being druid than not wearing metal armour, so wearing it clearly can't (and doesn't) prevent you from being a druid.
The first and last mention of metal armour and druids in the player's handbook is that one parenthesis in the proficiencies section. The worst part about the flippancy of the sage advice on the subject is that they had the opportunity to clarify in absolute terms whether it's just flavour or a hard rule and why, i.e- a consequence such as "wearing metal armour interferes with a druid's connection to nature", so we'd be absolutely clear why it's there, and what you'd be choosing to ignore. But if anything they made the justification of it being a rule even weaker (and it was weak to begin with).
RAW, Im pretty sure you have the right of it, and RAI I think you are still right.
And I think the fact that metal can be such a small part of studded leather armor that it wouldn't even be a lore issue. Even for scale mail, it wouldn't be an issue for the DM to just rule the druid variants are made up of bones or hardened leather.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
That is a perfect analogy.
It's not though; a vegetarian is by definition a person who does not eat meat, so eating meat is incompatible with being a vegetarian, that's literally all there is to it. A druid is never defined as being a person that does not wear metal armour; the 5e lore on druids is all about preserving balance, protecting nature etc., and metals are as much a part of the natural order as anything else. There is a lot more to being druid than not wearing metal armour, so wearing it clearly can't (and doesn't) prevent you from being a druid.
The first and last mention of metal armour and druids in the player's handbook is that one parenthesis in the proficiencies section. The worst part about the flippancy of the sage advice on the subject is that they had the opportunity to clarify in absolute terms whether it's just flavour or a hard rule and why, i.e- a consequence such as "wearing metal armour interferes with a druid's connection to nature", so we'd be absolutely clear why it's there, and what you'd be choosing to ignore. But if anything they made the justification of it being a rule even weaker (and it was weak to begin with).
But "a druid will not wear metal armor" so being a druid is certainly directly incompatible with wearing metal armor. No ifs, ands, or buts. The druid class is as defined by the parts of the game that make it the druid class as a vegetarian is defined by what makes them a vegetarian.
And again, I will point out that it doesn't matter whether it is a "hard rule" or not. The advice sage advice gives is perfectly valid: A table can change any part of the game, rule or fluff. That doesn't change what is printed.
The advice "just ignore that part of the book" is completely unhelpful to anyone who wants to play a druid as it is written and wants to explore options for armor for their druid.
But "a druid will not wear metal armor" so being a druid is certainly directly incompatible with wearing metal armor. No ifs, ands, or buts. The druid class is as defined by the parts of the game that make it the druid class as a vegetarian is defined by what makes them a vegetarian.
Except that a Druid is not incompatible with wearing metal armour, they're told to not choose to wear metal armour; they are perfectly capable of actually wearing it, and there are no repercussions for being forced into a suit of metal armour.
The word vegetarian literally means "someone who does not eat meat", the same is not true of what makes a Druid a druid. There is no justification, either in lore or mechanically. There used to be, but someone shouldn't need previous editions to understand a side-note rule in the current one.
If you look at any other class, for example Wizards, who are spellcasters who keep their spells in a spellbook; it's in their lore, and the rules describe your spells being in a spellbook, then tell you how that works. Paladins get divine powers, and then are told how those work.
Druids are given a spiel about balancing nature, then get an easily missed sidenote with functional loopholes and no justification; if it's a rule, it's one of the sloppiest in the entire game, and the sage advice failed to fix that, they just doubled down on the stupidity of how poorly they did it.
As I've said, you can justify metal armour in RAW by saying you were forced to wear it and can't take it off; this bypasses "will not wear" because you didn't choose to wear it, but your proficiencies mean that you not only suffer no repurcussions for doing so, you actually gain benefits for doing so. This is the stupidity of that "rule".
Every other class just gives you abilities and choices to make, Druid is the only one that gives you a proficiency and then tells you your character isn't allowed to choose to fully use it; if they wanted to do it properly they should have given proficiency only in non-metal light and medium armour and shields, this would have been simple, clean and uncontroversial, because you'd still be gaining something normally (the extra non-metal proficiencies) and putting on metal armour would have a real consequence if you don't take a feat or such to enable it. Instead they gave us a nonsense "rule"; they chose to do it wrong, then when asked about it, doubled down on doing it wrong.
Anyway, I didn't even want to be discussing this; I just weighed in on the studded leather question to point out that studded leather is a weird fantasy-only armour type, and that if it represents real "studded" armours, then they're definitely metal, otherwise if studded means something else, then there's no reason the studs should need to be metal, because any hard material would be equally effective as studs on leather/hide armour (that is to say, realistically, not at all, but in fantasy, sure why not?)
But "a druid will not wear metal armor" so being a druid is certainly directly incompatible with wearing metal armor. No ifs, ands, or buts. The druid class is as defined by the parts of the game that make it the druid class as a vegetarian is defined by what makes them a vegetarian.
Except that a Druid is not incompatible with wearing metal armour, they're told to not choose to wear metal armour; they are perfectly capable of actually wearing it, and there are no repercussions for being forced into a suit of metal armour.
This is an assertion. Up to now you have not shown any evidence that "will not" means that you are offered a choice other than your assertion. I suspect you will not in the future; whether that is a choice on your part or because you are unable to is up for debate. The only thing that the other side has said is "it doesn't say we can't" which is the worst kind of rules argument when there is a sentence that is a clear prohibition.
Your group can choose to ignore any part of the PHB at your table. I will repeat myself: offering the advice "just ignore that part of the book" does not help anyone who chooses to interpret the words on the page as they're actually written. Continuing to argue that the text says anything different than "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" or that it means that they will do that thing is a waste of time.
All your argument boils down to is a justification to ignore what is written. That is fine for your table. That is not advice on how to work with what's written.
Edit: Beyond all of that, I mentioned in post #3 that studded leather described something different than what is commonly portrayed in D&D.
This is an assertion. Up to now you have not shown any evidence that "will not" means that you are offered a choice other than your assertion. I suspect you will not in the future; whether that is a choice on your part or because you are unable to is up for debate. The only thing that the other side has said is "it doesn't say we can't" which is the worst kind of rules argument when there is a sentence that is a clear prohibition.
It's not an assertion; the Druid class literally gives you proficiency in all forms of light and medium armour, and shields, that means you are proficient in metal armours and shields as well, regardless of whether or not you use them. It then says that your Druid "will not" wear metal ones, not that they cannot, not that something bad happens if they do anyway, or are forced to, only that they "will" not.
And it doesn't come down to justifying my own decision to ignore the rule; even if you accept that it is a proper rule, it's an extremely weak one, with flaws and loopholes as I've already pointed out. You can bypass it without ignoring it; best case, it was implemented badly, and the sage advice doubled down on keeping it that way, but really it just shouldn't be there at all.
Again, I'm really not interested in going over this any further, I've said my piece.
Good. I will repeat myself: offering the advice "just ignore that part of the book" does not help anyone who chooses to interpret the words on the page as they're actually written in a way different from you. Continuing to argue that the text says anything different than "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" or that it means that they actually will do that thing is a waste of time. You can interpret the text that way, but you cannot require that anyone else does.
Your mechanical impact in 5e is grey area at best. As mechanically armor is rarely as much of a factor for Druids anyway since many of them shape shift rendering the armor moot and the other half of them are often spell casters which tend to boast little armor and or spell augmentation to their AC's to begin with. So while your trying to knock down what i said. Your argument is fairly toothless as well if you really want to get that way about it. The text does not have to be altered with anything that I said. I just gave previous context and the way things basically stand or can be dealt with either regardless of of Edition or in 5e specifically.
I guess I didn't make myself clear: Ask your DM. That is the entirety of my argument, it is supported by the advice that the authors give, it is the one thing that will let you know if you can do it in the world your DM is using, and it is the only reasonable advice that you can give to any player that wants to change anything about the game that they're playing (fluff or crunch).
This argument has the support of the text on the page, general advice on changes to the game, and specific advice on this topic. It is not based on opinion of the importance of armor to druids, it doesn't simply ignore text that is plainly written, and it is not based on editions whose rules and fluff are not on the page of this edition.
Sure was, and it's also a rule in this edition:
No matter how many people fight against it.
My druid wears studded leather armor. I asked for it a while back and my DM asked arent druids forbidden from wearing it but the rules state a druid would not wear it. However i disagree with the statement as metal in anymore really is still a part of nature and my druid being a Kobold raised by gnomes and other druids might have a different opinion on that. I said that from my perspective my druid would not care. What would wearing metal be a thing they do not do? Makes no sense to me. They can still wield metal weapons, they will still wear jewellry which contains metal. Metal is still a natural element even after forging it is still technically part of nature. I also don't believe that metal would interfere with magic in anyway because clerics and paladins can wear plate armor and still cast spells. So personally I see it as just fluff that was poorly worded. Someone who came up with the idea just had a very strong opinion on it it feels! xD
It really depends on what you interpret studded leather armour to be; in history there isn't really any such thing as "studded" armour, as it'd be completely pointless, yet it has become a fantasy armour trope where it's just a thing for some reason. There are historical armours that look studded but this is because the studs are actually holding metal inner plates in position, the advantage being that because the material goes over the metal, your enemy can't see where the weak points are, and it's cheaper to make than "proper" metal armour, and you can wear it over chainmail. See visby (coat of plates) and brigandine armours.
So if we assume that studded armour represents one of these coat-of-plates type armours, then it's absolutely metal armour and a druid shouldn't really wear it.
However, if you assume that the armour is only studded then presumably the idea is that the studs just add a chance to catch a blade on something harder than the leather parts; in that case you could argue that the studs could be made of ceramic or bone or some other suitably hard material, as it should be no less effective than metal studs would be.
I would however argue that the whole "no metal armour" thing isn't really a hard rule, as it says that druids "will not", not "cannot" wear it, implying it's cultural/ideological rather than it interferes with their abilities. If wildshaping can integrate metal swords etc. then there seems no reason metal armour should be any different.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
This is the part that I always take issue with. "Will not" and "cannot" both mean that they do not. It is not a limitation of the class, but it is still a requirement of the class. Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide - thus creating the issue that this thread is about.
No. Will not and cannot are not the same thing. Cannot implies a lack of capability. "I cannot reach that shelf, I am too short." Will not implies a choice. I will not willingingly put my hand on a hot stove."
The problem is that the authors, and they have had many opportunites to clerify via errata, supplied no consequence for what happens when a druid choses to wear metal armor. You dont become an oath breaker, you dont become a fallen druid or lose your powers or any anything else, which makes absolutely no sense as EVERY OTHER CLASS can wear whatever they like and use any item they like and suffer well defined consequences for doing so. Heck, clerics can use any weapon they want now and dont even need a diety.
I pwrsonally think that there should be a consequence but since there isnt, then druids only dont wear metal, until they chose otherwise. There are a lot of rules, or lack of rules in 5E so I just chalk this up to another one where the authors dont want to make another mechanical restriction but held onto the same fluff from previous versions. I wish they would clarify. Id rather have a rule I dont support than the vague and cryptic sage response we have been given on this issue - especially with the direction we are headed with fluidity on other historical race/character ideals.
Sides, my druid worships Mielikki and can wear metal armor. My 3.0 precedent trumps the lack of a formal cannot. 😁
I went back and took a look at 3.5 rules (last version I played) and the language was a druid is PROHIBITED. In other words, the deity told the druid no. If you violated that rule, you lost your powers for 24 hours.
Simple.
The lack of a mechanic and the specific verbiage used (will not vs cannot or prohibited) coupled with no consequence leads me to conclude it is nothing more than choice.
I welcome an errata stating otherwise. Ex-druids needing to atone was an interesting roleplaying option.
3.0/3.5 are not this game. Whatever was in past editions matters exactly as much as what is in a White Wolf product does to this game or what was in the last Starwars movie matters to this game.
There is no consequence for all sorts of things that a player is unable to do in the game. That is a non sequitur. There is no consequence for allowing your wizard to have proficiency in heavy armor because there doesn't need to be. Giving him that free proficiency bypasses all the means that he would need to take to get it in the first place, so none of those consequences matter.
People seem to be mis-reading the implications of the SAC entry on this problem. The SAC text is exactly the advice that the authors of this game give to any player/group that ask if they can change any part of the game, be it rule or fluff. What the SAC entry does not do is in any way say whether the specific limitation is a rule or not. People apparently read this to mean that it isn't a rule.
Vegetarians will not eat meat. A person that eats meat is not a vegetarian. Druids will not wear metal armor. A person who wears metal armor is not a druid. Simple. Consequence.
And again, to repeat the part that you haven't addressed: Whether you choose to ignore that requirement at your table does not mean that it does not exist for others to choose to abide, whether it is fluff or a rule or has any mechanical consequences.
Same to ya. Whether you chose to invent a penalty not specifically mentioned RAW does not mean that it must exist for others. Peace.
Druids will not wear metal armor. I didn’t invent any penalty there, it’s simple logic.
The part that I take issue with is that this is the only class with any kind of "restriction" like it; it's not functional, it's not mechanical, and it's not even justified in lore anymore, this one parenthesis in a proficiency section is the only place that it's even mentioned, and it's set out poorly. Druids are not proficient only in non-metal light and medium armours and shields, they're proficient in them all, yet "will not" wear metal armours, and there are no consequences in the class for doing so anyway (by choice or not).
No other class in the game says "if you do X, you cease to be Y", and neither does Druid; a Druid that is forced into a suit of metal armour doesn't cease to have their Druid abilities, ergo wearing it is a choice and nothing more. The Sage Advice mention of it is worse than useless, as the comparison to vegetarianism is flawed; a vegetarian who eats meat is by definition not a vegetarian, but a druid in metal armour doesn't cease to be a druid, and a druid is never defined as being someone who never wears metal armour. The flippancy of the sage advice frustrates me even more than the weakness of the "rule" in the first place; if it was rules as intended then it should have its own section and justify either why a druid shouldn't wear metal armour, or why they cannot, otherwise it's not worth including at all, as players are perfectly able to decide for themselves if they want to only wear organically grown tea leaves or not.
And the ridiculousness of it really is summed up in the "will not", as that phrasing absolutely matters; it means they aren't supposed to choose to wear metal armour, but if you decide in your background that your druid was forced into a suit of metal armour by drunken druidphobes and can't reach the clasps to undo it, then you've got yourself a perfectly RAW way to have metal armour.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
That is a perfect analogy.
It's not though; a vegetarian is by definition a person who does not eat meat, so eating meat is incompatible with being a vegetarian, that's literally all there is to it. A druid is never defined as being a person that does not wear metal armour; the 5e lore on druids is all about preserving balance, protecting nature etc., and metals are as much a part of the natural order as anything else. There is a lot more to being druid than not wearing metal armour, so wearing it clearly can't (and doesn't) prevent you from being a druid.
The first and last mention of metal armour and druids in the player's handbook is that one parenthesis in the proficiencies section. The worst part about the flippancy of the sage advice on the subject is that they had the opportunity to clarify in absolute terms whether it's just flavour or a hard rule and why, i.e- a consequence such as "wearing metal armour interferes with a druid's connection to nature", so we'd be absolutely clear why it's there, and what you'd be choosing to ignore. But if anything they made the justification of it being a rule even weaker (and it was weak to begin with).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
RAW, Im pretty sure you have the right of it, and RAI I think you are still right.
And I think the fact that metal can be such a small part of studded leather armor that it wouldn't even be a lore issue. Even for scale mail, it wouldn't be an issue for the DM to just rule the druid variants are made up of bones or hardened leather.
But "a druid will not wear metal armor" so being a druid is certainly directly incompatible with wearing metal armor. No ifs, ands, or buts. The druid class is as defined by the parts of the game that make it the druid class as a vegetarian is defined by what makes them a vegetarian.
And again, I will point out that it doesn't matter whether it is a "hard rule" or not. The advice sage advice gives is perfectly valid: A table can change any part of the game, rule or fluff. That doesn't change what is printed.
The advice "just ignore that part of the book" is completely unhelpful to anyone who wants to play a druid as it is written and wants to explore options for armor for their druid.
Except that a Druid is not incompatible with wearing metal armour, they're told to not choose to wear metal armour; they are perfectly capable of actually wearing it, and there are no repercussions for being forced into a suit of metal armour.
The word vegetarian literally means "someone who does not eat meat", the same is not true of what makes a Druid a druid. There is no justification, either in lore or mechanically. There used to be, but someone shouldn't need previous editions to understand a side-note rule in the current one.
If you look at any other class, for example Wizards, who are spellcasters who keep their spells in a spellbook; it's in their lore, and the rules describe your spells being in a spellbook, then tell you how that works. Paladins get divine powers, and then are told how those work.
Druids are given a spiel about balancing nature, then get an easily missed sidenote with functional loopholes and no justification; if it's a rule, it's one of the sloppiest in the entire game, and the sage advice failed to fix that, they just doubled down on the stupidity of how poorly they did it.
As I've said, you can justify metal armour in RAW by saying you were forced to wear it and can't take it off; this bypasses "will not wear" because you didn't choose to wear it, but your proficiencies mean that you not only suffer no repurcussions for doing so, you actually gain benefits for doing so. This is the stupidity of that "rule".
Every other class just gives you abilities and choices to make, Druid is the only one that gives you a proficiency and then tells you your character isn't allowed to choose to fully use it; if they wanted to do it properly they should have given proficiency only in non-metal light and medium armour and shields, this would have been simple, clean and uncontroversial, because you'd still be gaining something normally (the extra non-metal proficiencies) and putting on metal armour would have a real consequence if you don't take a feat or such to enable it. Instead they gave us a nonsense "rule"; they chose to do it wrong, then when asked about it, doubled down on doing it wrong.
Anyway, I didn't even want to be discussing this; I just weighed in on the studded leather question to point out that studded leather is a weird fantasy-only armour type, and that if it represents real "studded" armours, then they're definitely metal, otherwise if studded means something else, then there's no reason the studs should need to be metal, because any hard material would be equally effective as studs on leather/hide armour (that is to say, realistically, not at all, but in fantasy, sure why not?)
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
This is an assertion. Up to now you have not shown any evidence that "will not" means that you are offered a choice other than your assertion. I suspect you will not in the future; whether that is a choice on your part or because you are unable to is up for debate. The only thing that the other side has said is "it doesn't say we can't" which is the worst kind of rules argument when there is a sentence that is a clear prohibition.
Your group can choose to ignore any part of the PHB at your table. I will repeat myself: offering the advice "just ignore that part of the book" does not help anyone who chooses to interpret the words on the page as they're actually written. Continuing to argue that the text says anything different than "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" or that it means that they will do that thing is a waste of time.
All your argument boils down to is a justification to ignore what is written. That is fine for your table. That is not advice on how to work with what's written.
Edit: Beyond all of that, I mentioned in post #3 that studded leather described something different than what is commonly portrayed in D&D.
It's not an assertion; the Druid class literally gives you proficiency in all forms of light and medium armour, and shields, that means you are proficient in metal armours and shields as well, regardless of whether or not you use them. It then says that your Druid "will not" wear metal ones, not that they cannot, not that something bad happens if they do anyway, or are forced to, only that they "will" not.
And it doesn't come down to justifying my own decision to ignore the rule; even if you accept that it is a proper rule, it's an extremely weak one, with flaws and loopholes as I've already pointed out. You can bypass it without ignoring it; best case, it was implemented badly, and the sage advice doubled down on keeping it that way, but really it just shouldn't be there at all.
Again, I'm really not interested in going over this any further, I've said my piece.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Good. I will repeat myself: offering the advice "just ignore that part of the book" does not help anyone who chooses to interpret the words on the page as they're actually written in a way different from you. Continuing to argue that the text says anything different than "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" or that it means that they actually will do that thing is a waste of time. You can interpret the text that way, but you cannot require that anyone else does.