You keep accusing me of saying things that I haven't said; I've not once argued that the proficiency section doesn't say what it says, what I've raised is why what it says is precisely the problem as it's flimsy at best, and in reality fundamentally broken (and able to be circumvented in RAW, which you've conspicuously ignored), which the sage advice then doubled down on instead of fixing it in any way.
Feel free to someday read what I've actually said, but if you ever do, I'm not going to be subscribed to this thread.
I have read what you have said; I'm not accusing you of saying something that you haven't but trying to get you to actually think about what you have. None of what you have said is at all helpful for anyone who chooses to interpret “will not” as “will not” rather than “can if they choose to.” That much has not changed in any of this conversation.
It might be worthwhile for people to reread the SA Compendium entry on this:
If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class.
That is to say, without DM (or group) buy in, the implication is exactly that a character that doesn't follow the precepts of the druid class isn't a druid. A vegetarian that eats meat isn't a vegetarian.
And again, it is completely in line with the overarching advice the authors give to groups:
The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
Nicely cherrypicked definition (look at #s 3 and 4 on that same dictionary page), but the assertion is that you must use your choice of definition. That dictionary doesn't show that your selection of interpretation of "will not" must be enforced on everyone else playing the game. The PHB doesn't tell you which of those 7 'will' verb definitions to use, and that is the point: you would need evidence from the game to prove that one of those definitions is the correct definition of 'will' in this place to exclude any of the others. Without that, your choice is your choice but need not be mine.
Until you provide that, I will continue to re-iterate the actual advice that the Devs give in their document:
If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class.
Don't get hung up on the idea that something is a choice anyway. It is a choice in the same way that choosing not to eat meat is a choice. Choosing to depart from what makes you a member of your class is a choice to not be a member of that class.
The line about druids not wearing metal armor is just like the line about paladins having a lawful good alignment: a description that was copy-pasted from a previous edition of the game and got missed in editing after the decision was made to not have gameplay mechanics enforcing such restrictions on characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class.
But Paladins are a poor example, because the rules lay out exactly what a DM could do when a paladin strays too far from it’s class story:
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
There's nothing in a paladin's oath about being a specific alignment, though. Violating the oath has mechanical effects (that still don't make you an ex-paladin), being something other than Lawful Good does not.
Okay, so I've got a couple of thoughts. First, we'll look at the druid's actual proficiency.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
This is actually pretty clear. Druids are capable of wearing medium armor, but for whatever reason you deem, they elect not to. The general thrust is they prefer to wear as natural clothing and armor as possible. They are, after all, "nature wizards". Which means we have an RP hook. If the druid wants better armor, they can go and find it. Dragon Scale Mail is the most obvious option. If you don't already know, I'm sure you can guess which color Talis the White, from Horde of the Dragon Queen, wears. Purportedly, there's a Half Plate of Poison Resistance made out of mushrooms in one of the DDAL adventures for the Rage of Demons storyline. I don't doubt it's existence, but I haven't seen it. But non-magical armors exist, too. Storm King's Thunder has multiple stone breastplates, and they're only worth a little more than regular ones. I'd say around 500 gold, if you want it new.
And don't forget that armor can always be reskinned (pun intended, keep reading) to be something else. We all have a pretty good concept of what leather (studded leather, less so) is, but what about hide?
Hide. This crude armor consists of thick furs and pelts. It is commonly worn by barbarian tribes, evil humanoids, and other folk who lack access to the tools and materials needed to create better armor.
A nice description that gives us a lot of options. Bears, giant badgers, lions, and wolves are all evocative choices, but can it be more? In the present day, commercial hide is typically leather that comes from cattle and other livestock animals (goats, sheep, pigs), alligator skin, buckskin (deer), and snakeskin. You could have a half-dozen characters, all wearing hide, and each suit of armor would look markedly different from one another. Heck, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e had magical rhino hide armor.
Someone earlier brought up Ankheg armor. I remember crafting that in Baldur's Gate. A breastplate, made from an Ankheg, sounds pretty dope. Maybe throw on some acid resistance and I'd definitely want it on my druid. Heck, I'd want that on a lot of characters.
And I think the following nugget from Sage Advice might say it best.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
As long as it is ok with your DM.
It is heavily implied, if not explicitly stated, that every class has a story and that it should be leaned into. In fact, you even quoted that from Sage Advice higher up the page. It's why we sit down at the table and play. I feel like you're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. You aren't adding anything to the conversation.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
As long as it is ok with your DM.
It is heavily implied, if not explicitly stated, that every class has a story and that it should be leaned into. In fact, you even quoted that from Sage Advice higher up the page. It's why we sit down at the table and play. I feel like you're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. You aren't adding anything to the conversation.
I'm just pointing out the only functional advice in the SAC entry that you quote and then proceed to only reference the non-actionable parts of.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I'm trying to point out to each person who has read the SAC but doesn't actually conclude what the author concludes from it hasn't understood what the author wrote. The entry gives a lot of information about the game and why the sentence is in the book and how some classes involve story, and then finally provides a single piece of actionable advice -- "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
Seems like someone is leaning heavily into it being a "choice" as well.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
Seems like someone is leaning heavily into it being a "choice" as well.
Who's leaning? It is a choice. Because, as a player, if you're playing a druid, you chose to be one. No one forced you to play that class. And if you choose to play one, you do so with full knowledge of what the book says. You choose to buy into that story.
It's not just the druid lifestyle that chooses not to wear metal armor. You, the player, does too.
Funny how this gets so emotive, yet no one mentions Druids and spell scrolls: "While the druids are reported to have been literate, they are believed to have been prevented by doctrine from recording their knowledge in written form".
Funny how this gets so emotive, yet no one mentions Druids and spell scrolls: "While the druids are reported to have been literate, they are believed to have been prevented by doctrine from recording their knowledge in written form".
I mean, that isn't mentioned in the game, is it? This whole discussion up to now is about stuff that does show up in one of the books from the game, how to interpret that, and under what conditions you can ignore it.
But you did happen to ignore a couple of relevant points:
Class requirements are written in the class descriptions.
That sentence does not say that paladins must be lawful good, they are listed as an example.
The context around that sentence in fact says the opposite: "Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment." and "For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos."
Several other classes are listed for other alignments, but no one claims that alignments are required for those classes.
That actually does show up in the game books, and we did discuss how to interpret it and how it can be used in the game.
You keep accusing me of saying things that I haven't said; I've not once argued that the proficiency section doesn't say what it says, what I've raised is why what it says is precisely the problem as it's flimsy at best, and in reality fundamentally broken (and able to be circumvented in RAW, which you've conspicuously ignored), which the sage advice then doubled down on instead of fixing it in any way.
Feel free to someday read what I've actually said, but if you ever do, I'm not going to be subscribed to this thread.
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.
I have read what you have said; I'm not accusing you of saying something that you haven't but trying to get you to actually think about what you have. None of what you have said is at all helpful for anyone who chooses to interpret “will not” as “will not” rather than “can if they choose to.” That much has not changed in any of this conversation.
It might be worthwhile for people to reread the SA Compendium entry on this:
That is to say, without DM (or group) buy in, the implication is exactly that a character that doesn't follow the precepts of the druid class isn't a druid. A vegetarian that eats meat isn't a vegetarian.
And again, it is completely in line with the overarching advice the authors give to groups:
Here you go: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/will
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal
And for toots and giggles:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannot
to be unable to do otherwise than
Nicely cherrypicked definition (look at #s 3 and 4 on that same dictionary page), but the assertion is that you must use your choice of definition. That dictionary doesn't show that your selection of interpretation of "will not" must be enforced on everyone else playing the game. The PHB doesn't tell you which of those 7 'will' verb definitions to use, and that is the point: you would need evidence from the game to prove that one of those definitions is the correct definition of 'will' in this place to exclude any of the others. Without that, your choice is your choice but need not be mine.
Until you provide that, I will continue to re-iterate the actual advice that the Devs give in their document:
Don't get hung up on the idea that something is a choice anyway. It is a choice in the same way that choosing not to eat meat is a choice. Choosing to depart from what makes you a member of your class is a choice to not be a member of that class.
The line about druids not wearing metal armor is just like the line about paladins having a lawful good alignment: a description that was copy-pasted from a previous edition of the game and got missed in editing after the decision was made to not have gameplay mechanics enforcing such restrictions on characters.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But Paladins are a poor example, because the rules lay out exactly what a DM could do when a paladin strays too far from it’s class story:
There's nothing in a paladin's oath about being a specific alignment, though. Violating the oath has mechanical effects (that still don't make you an ex-paladin), being something other than Lawful Good does not.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There also isn’t a line in the paladin class itself that says that it must be lawful good. Law and Good only show up in descriptions of oaths.
And a sidebar says that a paladin’s alignment may not match his oath’s favored alignment anyway.
Alignment, page 177:
Lawful Good: Gold dragons, paladins, most dwarves
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Okay, so I've got a couple of thoughts. First, we'll look at the druid's actual proficiency.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
This is actually pretty clear. Druids are capable of wearing medium armor, but for whatever reason you deem, they elect not to. The general thrust is they prefer to wear as natural clothing and armor as possible. They are, after all, "nature wizards". Which means we have an RP hook. If the druid wants better armor, they can go and find it. Dragon Scale Mail is the most obvious option. If you don't already know, I'm sure you can guess which color Talis the White, from Horde of the Dragon Queen, wears. Purportedly, there's a Half Plate of Poison Resistance made out of mushrooms in one of the DDAL adventures for the Rage of Demons storyline. I don't doubt it's existence, but I haven't seen it. But non-magical armors exist, too. Storm King's Thunder has multiple stone breastplates, and they're only worth a little more than regular ones. I'd say around 500 gold, if you want it new.
And don't forget that armor can always be reskinned (pun intended, keep reading) to be something else. We all have a pretty good concept of what leather (studded leather, less so) is, but what about hide?
Hide. This crude armor consists of thick furs and pelts. It is commonly worn by barbarian tribes, evil humanoids, and other folk who lack access to the tools and materials needed to create better armor.
A nice description that gives us a lot of options. Bears, giant badgers, lions, and wolves are all evocative choices, but can it be more? In the present day, commercial hide is typically leather that comes from cattle and other livestock animals (goats, sheep, pigs), alligator skin, buckskin (deer), and snakeskin. You could have a half-dozen characters, all wearing hide, and each suit of armor would look markedly different from one another. Heck, 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e had magical rhino hide armor.
Someone earlier brought up Ankheg armor. I remember crafting that in Baldur's Gate. A breastplate, made from an Ankheg, sounds pretty dope. Maybe throw on some acid resistance and I'd definitely want it on my druid. Heck, I'd want that on a lot of characters.
And I think the following nugget from Sage Advice might say it best.
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.
A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.
Don't let the druid's preference for non-metal armors hold you back, because it doesn't. Use it to tell a story. Use it to go out into the world and do cool stuff to get something better.
As long as it is ok with your DM.
It is heavily implied, if not explicitly stated, that every class has a story and that it should be leaned into. In fact, you even quoted that from Sage Advice higher up the page. It's why we sit down at the table and play. I feel like you're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. You aren't adding anything to the conversation.
I'm just pointing out the only functional advice in the SAC entry that you quote and then proceed to only reference the non-actionable parts of.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I'm trying to point out to each person who has read the SAC but doesn't actually conclude what the author concludes from it hasn't understood what the author wrote. The entry gives a lot of information about the game and why the sentence is in the book and how some classes involve story, and then finally provides a single piece of actionable advice -- "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
Seems like someone is leaning heavily into it being a "choice" as well.
Who's leaning? It is a choice. Because, as a player, if you're playing a druid, you chose to be one. No one forced you to play that class. And if you choose to play one, you do so with full knowledge of what the book says. You choose to buy into that story.
It's not just the druid lifestyle that chooses not to wear metal armor. You, the player, does too.
Funny how this gets so emotive, yet no one mentions Druids and spell scrolls: "While the druids are reported to have been literate, they are believed to have been prevented by doctrine from recording their knowledge in written form".
I mean, that isn't mentioned in the game, is it? This whole discussion up to now is about stuff that does show up in one of the books from the game, how to interpret that, and under what conditions you can ignore it.
You make a compelling argument.
But you did happen to ignore a couple of relevant points: